;-NRLF 


CH4 


FOUR  HUNDRED    AND    FIFTY-EIGHT    COPIES 

OF   JURGEN   AND  THE  CENSOR  HAVE 

BEEN    PRINTED  AND    NUMBERED,    OF 

WHICH     FOUR     HUNDRED     AND 

FORTY    ARE   FOR   SALE.    THIS 

IS     COPY     NUMBER 


JURGEN 

AND  THE  CENSOR 


REPORT  OF  THE  EMERGENCY  COMMITTEE 
ORGANIZED  TO  PROTEST  AGAINST  THE 
SUPPRESSION  OF  JAMES  BRANCH  CABELL'S 


JURGEN 


PRIVATELY     PRINTED     FOR     THE     EMERGENCY     COMMITTEE 
EDWARD  HALE  BIERSTADT        BARRETT  H.  CLARK        SIDNEY  HOWARD 


ONE   THOUSAND    NINE    HUNDRED    AND    TWENTY 

NEW  YORK 


.  .  . 

**  * 


COPYRIGHT,  1920,  BY 
BARRETT  H.  CLARK 


CONTENTS 

Preface James  Branch  Cabell 

Letter  from  the  New  York  Society  for  the  Suppression 

of  Vice John  S.  Sumner 

Report  of  the  Emergency  Committee Barrett  H .  Ctark,  Secretary 

"MORALS,  Not  Art  or  Literature" Edward  Hale Bierstadt 

List  of  Signers  of  the  Protest 

Letters  to  the  Emergency  Committee Joseph  Hergesheimer 

Burton  Rascoe 
William  Lyon  Phelps 
Edward  Sheldon 
Kate  Douglas  Wiggin 
Sinclair  Lewis 
Christopher  Morley 
Brander  Matthews 
Henry  Turner  Bailey 
Lawrence  Gilman 
Pierre  Troubelzkoy 
John  Drinkwater 
Harriet  Ford 
E.  P.  Costigan 
PaulE.  More 
Theodore  Dreiser 
Walter  Lippmann 
Mary  E.  Wilkins  Freeman 
Arnold  Bennett 
Owen  Wister 
Padraic  Colum 
Thomas  H.  Dickinson 
Hugh  Walpole 
Mary  Austin 
Charles  Rann  Kennedy 
J.  W.Linn 
H .  L.  Mencken 
St.  JohnErvine 
George  Moore 

Utters  to  the  Publisher. j 

Ellis  P.  Oberholtzer 
Ernest  A .  Boyd 
Gilbert  Cannon 
Echoes  From  the  Press: 

The  Judging  of  Jurgen James  Branch  Cabell 

The  Rainbow  and  Jurgen Gilbert  Cannan 

Is  Any  Book  Safe? New  York  Times 

Lift  Literary  Load  Off  Police New  York  Evening  Sun 

Appendix  A Extracts  from  the  Penal 

Code  of  the  State  of  New 
York  and  the  United 
States  Criminal  Code. 

Appendix  B Extracts  from  MORALS, 

Not  Art  or  Literature 


760851 


PREFACE 

By  James  Branch  Cabell* 

In  reply  to  the  questions  you  ask  me,  nothing  could  be  more  valueless  than 
my  personal  opinion  of  the  New  York  Society  for  the  Suppression  of  Vice  and  of 
its  attitude  toward  Jurgen.  Of  a  proceeding  by  which  I  have  been  robbed  and 
vilified  I  cannot  be  expected  to  speak  or  think  without  bias.  The  part  of  wisdom, 
therefore,  is  silence.  Yet — since  a  "literary"  allusion  is  always  more  or  less  my 
foible  as  "a  prosperous  and  affected  pseudo-litterateur" —  I  would  temper  this 
taciturnity  by  referring  you  to  the  fragmentary  MS.  of  The  Judging  of  Jurgen, 
which  if  it  really  dates  from  the  fourteenth  century,  seems  curiously  prophetic. 

As  to  censorship  of  our  reading-matter,  I  concede  this  may,  in  theory,  be 
advisable.  In  practice,  though,  I  can  imagine  no  persons  or  class  of  persons  quali 
fied  to  perform  this  censorship.  Pace  the  Vice  Society,  there  is  certainly  a 
difference  between  pornography  and  fine  literature,  if  but  the  difference  that 
everybody  enjoys  the  first  where  few  care  one  way  or  the  other  about  the  second: 
and  certainly  the  two  should  be  appraised  by  diverse  and  appropriate  standards. 
A  work  of  art  should  therefore,  in  theory,  be  judged  entirely  as  a  work  of  art,  by 
a  jury  of  practitioners  of  the  art  concerned. 

Yet,  since  every  self-respecting  author  at  bottom  abominates  his  com 
petitors,  despises  his  inferiors,  and  is  frantically  irritated  by  the  work  of  those 
who  differ  from  him  in  aesthetic  canons,  such  an  arrangement  would,  in  practice, 
only  fling  open  more  conspicuous  fields  wherein  to  flaunt  the  mutual  spite 
and  miscomprehension  common  to  us  creative  writers.  Besides,  it  is  not 
difficult  to  forecast  what  sort  of  writers  must,  and  would,  be  chosen  for  the 
judiciary,  as  representing  the  dignity  of  letters  by  the  happiest  combination  of 
mediocrity  and  senility.  No:  in  the  end  an  attempt  to  establish  a  purely  "literary" 
tribunal  would  result  in  setting  over  American  art  a  death-watch  of  genial  clergy 
men  and  decrepit  college-professors;  and  I  despondently  question  if  their  decisions 
would  be  a  whit  less  imbecile  than  the  present  arbitraments  of  the  society's 
hired  spies. 

With  the  outcome  of  the  Jurgen  case  I  have  really — now — no  especial  con 
cern.  To  the  reception  accorded  my  books  during  the  last  fifteen  years  this 
suppression  of  the  Comedy  of  Justice  seems,  indeed,  the  logical  and  exhilarating 
climax.  At  all  events,  the  book  exists  in  a  sufficient  number  of  copies  to  be  beyond 
destruction  by  anything  save  its  own  inherent  inadequacies.  If  Jurgen  contains 
the  right  constituents  it  will  live,  and  if  it  lacks  the  stuff  of  longevity  it  will  in 
due  course  die;  either  way,  the  outcome  is,  now,  to  be  decided  neither  by  me  nor 
by  vice  commissioners,  nor  even  by  a  grand  jury. 

As  touches  my  personal  part  in  the  publication,  it  is  in  the  end  by  Jurgen 
that  I  must  be  condemned  or  justified,  rather  than  by  what  anyone — including 
me — may  just  now  elect  to  say  about  Jurgen.  And  inasmuch  as  the  receipt  of 
royalty  statements  is  not  generally  included  among  the  threatened  torments  of 
the  next  world,  it  seems  unlikely  that  this  final  verdict — which  is  in  the  entire 
transaction  the  one  feature  of  any  conceivable  importance — will  ever  be  known 
by  me.  So  I  cannot  regard  even  this  final  verdict  with  much  sense  of  personal 
concern. 


*In  reply  to  questions  addressed  to  Mr.   Cabell    by    the  Secretary    of    the    Emergency 


:tter  dated  May  6,  IQZO. 


J    3  r  *    *       * 

-  ,  .Against  the  charge  of  violating  the  current  morality  of  1920  I  think  that  any 
'serious  defence  would  be  a  waste  of  effort,  if  only  because  the  question  must  so 
soon  become  of  purely  antiquarian  interest.  Our  children  may  not  improve, 
even  from  the  standpoint  of  humor,  upon  our  moral  standards,  but  our  children 
will  certainly  not  retain  them.  When,  as  must  inevitably  happen  before  very 
long,  our  present  ethical  criteria  have  come  to  seem  as  quaint  as  those  of  the 
Druids  or  the  Etruscans,  or  even  as  those  of  1913  appear  nowadays,  offences 
against  any  one  of  these  outmoded  codes  will  hardly  be  esteemed  worth  talking 
about.  Should  Jurgen  be  remembered  ten  years  hence,  it  will,  through  being 
remembered,  be  amply  exonerated:  whereas  it  Jurgen.  be  forgotten,  the  book  will 
then  of  course  be  violating  nobody's  moral  sensibility.  Time  thus  lies  under  bond 
to  silence,  whether  with  praise  or  with  oblivion,  all  these  aspersions; 'and  willy- 
nilly  I  must  defer  to  time. 

None  the  less  do  I  still  believe  that  Jurgen  is,  as  originally  labeled,  "a  book 
wherein  each  man  will  find  what  his  nature  enables  him  to  see";  and  when  anyone 
confesses  that  he  finds  therein  only  "offensiveness,  and  lasciviousness,  and  lewd- 
ness,  and  indecency,"  I  must  make  bold  to  take  the  announcement  as  a  less 
candid  summary  of  the  book's  nature  than  of  the  critic's. 

What  can  be  done,  you  ask  me,  to  better  the  present  literary  situation? 
Not  much,  I  fear:  for  we  contend  against  well-meaning  and  courageous  persons 
who  fight  for  high  aims.  The  most  fantastic  feature  of  this  droll  affair  is  the 
profound  sincerity  of  its  participants  upon  both  sides.  You  and  I  may  know — 
and  welcome,  as  the  saying  runs — that  we  are  in  the  right  so  far  as  goes  the  un- 
human  abstraction  called  rationality.  But  the  officers  and  backers  of  the  society's 
imbecilities,  also,  quite  honestly  believe  they  are  engaged  in  praiseworthy  work 
when,  to  cite  a  recent  example,  they  hale  Mademoiselle  de  Maupin  into  the 
police  courts.  Indeed,  they  appear  to  be  inebriated  to  these  antics  by  very  much 
the  same  real  love  of  virtue  which  incites  some  of  their  congeners  to  burn  an 
unruly  negro  as  a  torch  to  illumine  their  reprehension  of  lawlessness,  and  yet 
others  to  express  their  disfavor  of  intemperance  by  decreeing  that  wine  is  too 
atrocious  a  compound  to  be  employed  for  any  purpose  except  to  symbolize  the 
blood  of  Jesus  Christ.  In  the  face  of  so  many  laudable  intentions  thus  obscurely 
communicated,  we  can  but  deduce  that  whenever  stupidity  and  high  morals  pig 
together  they  beget  an  offspring  that  is  doubly  cursed  with  zealotry  and  toxic 
aphasia.  Nor,  of  course,  does  it  appear  quite  pious  to  contend  against  these 
natural  phenomena. 

At  all  events,  you  and  I  are  in  the  negligible  minority.  I  need  hardly  remind 
you  that  the  officers  of  the  society  have  embattled  back  of  them  all  the  complacent 
muddleheadedness  of  the  average  pew-renting  American,  who  from  the  first  has 
rather  fretfully  resented  any  talk  about  "art."  Mr.  Paul  E.  More,  in  one  of  the 
letters  relative  to  the  Jurgen  imbroglio,  has  nicely  summed  up  this  popular  point 
of  view:  "I  am  not  at  all  in  sympathy  with  a  group  of  writers  who  would  take  any 
protest  against  the  society  as  a  justification  of  what  they  are  pleased  to  call  art. 
The  harm  done  by  the  society  seems  to  me  very  slight,  whereas  the  harm  done  by 
the  self-styled  artist  may  be  very  great." 

Now  that  is  really  the  popular  and,  therefore,  the  expedient  moral  attitude. 
The  morality  of  a  democracy  is,  after  all,  a  matter  of  elementary  arithmetic: 
one  counts  the  ballots  (sometimes,  it  is  said,  quite  honestly)  in  order  to  distinguish 
between  right  and  wrong,  because  the  voice  of  the  people  is  notoriously  the  voice 
of  God.  It  is  precisely  this  discerning  voice  which  has  proclaimed,  time  and  again, 

8 


that  the  sturdy  American  peerage  of  nature's  noblemen  does  not  want  to  be 
bothered  with  any  nonsense  about  literature  and  art:  for  the  reasons,  first,  that 
such  fripperies  play  no  part  in  honest  polltax-payers'  lives;  and,  second,  that  in 
very  much  the  manner  of  this  Mr.  More,  our  reputable  citizenry — obscurely  and 
inarticulately,  but  none  the  less  genuinely — resents  the  impudence  of  "self-styled 
artists"  "who  presume  to  know  more  than  their  betters  about  "what  they  are 
pleased  to  call  art." 

It  seems  therefore  eminently  appropriate  that  in  our  National  Hall  of 
Statuary,  along  with  such  world-famous  statesmen  and  shapers  of  human  destiny 
as  Jacob  Collamer,  S.  J.  Kirkwood,  and  George  L.  Shoup,  the  sole  representative 
of  our  art  and  letters  should  today  be  General  Lew  Wallace,  for  Ben  Hur  is  really 
the  perfected  expression  of  American  ideals  in  literature.  It  is  equally  appropriate 
— I  like  to  think — that,  when  judged  by  these  ideals,  Jurgen  should  be  decreed 
"offensive,  and  lascivious,  and  lewd,  and  indecent." 

James  Branch  Cabell. 

Dumbarton  Grange, 
Dumbarton,  Virginia. 


Letter  from  the  Secretary  of  the  New  York  Society  for  the  Suppression  of 
Vice  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Emergency  Committee 


April  16,  1920. 


Dear  Sir: 


I  have  your  letter  of  the  14th  instant,  enclosing  one  dollar  for  two  copies 
of  the  pamphlet  entitled  "Morals,  Not  Art  or  Literature,"  which  was  compiled 
by  Mr.  Comstock  a  year  or  two  before  he  died.  I  will  send  you  these  pamphlets 
in  a  day  or  two.  We  are  in  the  midst  of  moving  our  headquarters  and  these 
matters  have  been  packed  up  and  it  will  take  a  little  time  to  get  straightened  out 
in  our  new  quarters. 

Regarding  Jurgen — In  view  of  the  fact  that  this  case  is  still  pending,  I  shall 
say  only  that  this  book  was  first  brought  to  our  attention  by  a  correspondent  who 
forwarded  a  clipping  of  the  New  York  Tribune,  with  which  you  are  no  doubt 
familiar.  Having  obtained  a  copy  of  the  book  and  read  it  and  sought  the  advice 
of  others,  we  are  of  the  opinion  that  its  publication  and  sale  constitute  a  violation 
of  law.  In  the  usual  course  the  book  was  presented  to  a  magistrate  whose  opinion 
coincided  with  ours  and  who  received  the  complaint  and  issued  summonses. 
The  defendants  waived  examination  in  the  Magistrates'  Court  and  were  held 
for  trial  in  Special  Sessions.  Subsequently,  on  their  motion,  the  case  was  trans 
ferred  to  General  Sessions  to  proceed  by  indictment  and  jury  trial.  It  is  now 
awaiting  presentation  to  the  Grand  Jury.  In  addition  to  opinions  received  here, 
we  received  opinions  also  from  Boston,  Philadelphia,  Chicago  and  Cincinnati, 
where  the  book  had  been  sold. 

As  to  the  general  work  of  the  Society,  this  corporation  was  organized  in 
1873  to  enforce  the  laws  seeking  to  suppress  traffic  in  obscene,  lewd,  lascivious, 
indecent,  filthy  and  disgusting  books  or  publications,  and  for  other  purposes. 
This  law  does  not  make  exception  as  to  the  publications  of  any  particular  class. 
That  is,  it  does  not  distinguish  between  the  writings  of  John  Doe,  who  has  no 
reputation,  or  Richard  Roe,  who  is  a  distinguished  author;  nor  have  the  courts, 
in  interpreting  this  law,  permitted  the  intent  of  the  author,  expressed  or  implied, 
to  influence  them  in  their  decisions.  If  the  language  of  a  book  is  lewd,  or  if  it  is 
of  suggestive  lewdness,  it  is  a  violation  of  the  law,  regardless  of  the  literary  or 
artistic  character  of  the  published  matter.  Some  of  the  court  decisions  have  held 
that  a  writing  of  an  obscene  character  was  more  dangerous  when  couched  in 
fine  language  than  when  set  forth  in  crude  form,  and  this  is  undoubtedly  true. 

This  Society  endeavors  to  perform  its  duties  without  favor  to  any  class. 
If  it  appears  that  the  law,  which  it  is  our  duty  to  enforce,  has  been  violated, 
we  are  just  as  prompt  to  proceed  against  an  established  publisher  or  a  known 
author  as  against  the  street  peddler  who  seeks  to  excite  impure  thoughts  in  the 
minds  of  boys  by  retailing  questionable  pictures  on  the  public  street.  Any  other 
course  would  lay  us  open  to  just  criticism. 

Some  recent  editorials  and  other  comments  assumed  that  this  Society  was 
organized  to  perform  its  duties  in  a  limited  way.  There  is  nothing  in  the  Act 
of  Incorporation  of  the  Society,  nor  in  the  statutes  under  which  it  proceeds,  which 
would  warrant  such  a  conclusion.  Of  course,  there  has  been  a  great  amount  of 
exaggeration  as  to  the  effect  of  this  Society's  activities.  The  query  of  the  Times, 
"Is  Any  Book  Safe?"  and  the  editorial  matter  presented  under  that  caption  is, 
of  course,  puerile.  It  is  answered  by  the  fact  that  out  of  the  thousands  of  books 
published  and  offered  for  sale  during  the  past  year  action  has  been  taken  against 
possibly  four  or  five.  We  realize  very  fully  that  it  is  not  pleasant  for  a  publisher 
or  an  author  to  be  brought  into  court  to  defend  his  work;  nor  is  it  a  particularly 

10 


pleasing  duty  to  feel  called  upon  to  proceed  against  a  publication  which  may 
be  the  result  of  months  or  years  of  work  on  the  part  of  the  producer.  If  laws 
exist  they  should  be  enforced  until  amended  or  repealed.  Much  of  the  unsettled 
condition  prevailing  in  the  country  at  the  present  time  can  be  traced  directly  to 
a  lack  of  law  enforcement  in  many  directions  during  past  years. 

Last  year  this  Society  took  action  against  160  defendants.  Of  this  number 
only  four  cases  had  to  do  with  book  publications.  Pictures  of  a  demoralizing 
character  were  taken  on  search  warrant  to  the  extent  of  50,000,  not  only  in  New 
York,  but  in  Boston,  Oswego,  Rutherford,  Philadelphia  and  Chicago.  Plates 
for  reproducing  such  pictures  were  taken  to  the  extent  of  over  300.  Three  thou 
sand  feet  of  motion  picture  film  of  the  most  obscene  character  were  confiscated 
and  destroyed.  In  many  of  these  cases  the  morals  of  school  children — boys  and 
young  men — were  directly  involved.  From  this  I  think  you  may  fairly  determine 
that  the  book  cases  are  incidental,  but  at  the  same  time  important  features  of 
the  work  which  we  are  carrying  on. 

I  should  be  very  glad  to  have  you  call  at  our  office  with  a  view  of  discussing 
these  matters  more  in  detail,  and  believe  that  if  you  have  any  other  opinion  now 
you  can  readily  be  satisfied  that  no  undertaking  of  the  Society  is  entered  into 
except  with  a  view  to  fairly  and  impartially  enforcing  those  laws  which  we  are 
bound  to  enforce  under  the  terms  of  our  charter. 

Yours  very  truly, 

John  S.  Sumner, 

Secretary. 


11 


REPORT  OF  THE  EMERGENCY  COMMITTEE 

By  BARRETT  H.  CLARK 

Secretary 


REPORT  OF  THE  EMERGENCY  COMMITTEE 

Jurgen,  "A  Comedy  of  Justice,"  was  published  by  Robert  M. 
McBride  &  Company  of  New  York  City  on  September  27th,  1919. 
The  author ,  subsequently  designated  in  legal  documents  as '  'onej  ames 
Branch  Cabell,"  has  for  fifteen  years  enjoyed  immunity  from  the 
guardians  of  national  morals  in  the  pursuit  of  his  literary  endeavors, 
publishing  in  that  period  half  a  dozen  novels  and  romances,  a 
number  of  short  stories,  a  volume  of  verse,  and  a  book  of  essays. 
Until  the  suppression  of  his  latest  book,  Jurgen,  Mr.  Cabell  was 
known  among  the  group  of  readers  who  recognized  the  distinction 
of  his  work,  as  a  writer  of  fastidious  English,  devoted  to  the  depiction 
of  the  romantic  and  idealistic  manifestations  of  human  love.  Mr. 
Cabell  has  been  content  throughout  his  career  to  maintain  a  po 
sition  apart  from  the  literary  "world,"  caring  neither  for  notoriety 
nor  for  the  passing  fame  of  the  writer  of  best-sellers. 

Those  of  Mr.  Cabell's  readers  who  have  followed  the  develop 
ment  of  his  art,  will  have  recognized  in  Jurgen  the  logical — one 
might  say  the  inevitable — point  toward  which  the  earlier  books  were 
constantly  tending. 

It  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  Jurgen  is  no  isolated  phenom 
enon;  it  is  an  integral  part  of  the  world  of  Mr.  Cabell's  imagination. 
It  is  the  crowning  episode  of  the  artist's  comedy  of  life.  It  seems  to 
be  his  ultimate  word  upon  the  subject  that  underlies  all  his  books, 
from  The  Eagle  s  Shadow  to  Beyond  Life . 

It  is  reasonable  to  assume  that  before  the  suppression  of 
Jurgen,  the  New  York  Society  for  the  Suppression  of  Vice  never 
heard  of  its  author.  Neither  Mr.  Cabell  nor  his  latest  book  could 
very  well  have  excited  the  suspicions  of  the  crusaders.  Now, 
Jurgen  had  been  on  the  market  for  over  three  months;  a  large 
number  of  copies  had  been  sold,  considering  the  subtle  character 
of  the  book;  about  fifty  reviews  had  appeared  in  news 
papers  and  magazines  throughout  the  country;  and  with  the  ex 
ception  of  five  reviewers,  whose  words  are  quoted  below,1  no  one, 
so  far  as  it  has  been  possible  to  determine,  had  hinted  that  Jurgen 
was  in  any  respect  "objectionable." 


*Heywood  Broun,  in  the  New  York  Tribune,  Nov.  ijth,  1919:  ".  .  .  strives  to  attain  a 
Rabelaisian  flavor.  ...  In  the  hands  of  Cabell  the  joke  becomes  a  barroom  story  refurbished 
for  the  boudoir.  In  such  a  refining  process  it  becomes  a  little  nasty." 

"A.  L.  S.  W,"  in  the  Springfield  Union,  Oct.  iz,  1919:  ".  .  .  and  so  cautiously  one  may  let 
it  be  known  that  Jurgen  will  be  recommended  to  one's  friends  whose  maturity  and  taste  are  un- 

15 


It  was  not  until  the  publication  of  Mr.  Walter  J.  Kingsley's 
letter  to  the  Tribune,  published  January  3rd,  1920,  that  the  trouble 
began.  Mr.  Kingsley's  letter  follows: 

ABOUT  A  COLUMN 

Jurgen  and  the  Non-Reading  Public 

James  Branch  Cabell  is  making  a  clean  getaway  with  Jurgen,  quite  the 
naughtiest  book  since  George  Moore  began  ogling  maidservants  in  Mayo.  How 
come?  Dreiser  had  the  law  hot  after  him  for  The  Genius  and  Hager  Revelly 
came  close  to  landing  Daniel  Carson  Goodman  in  Leavenworth,  yet  these  volumes 
are  innocent  compared  with  Jurgen,  which  deftly  and  knowingly  treats  in  thinly 
veiled  episodes  of  all  the  perversities,  abnormalities  and  dam- foolishness  of  sex. 
There  is  an  undercurrent  of  extreme  sensuality  throughout  the  book,  and  once 
the  trick  of  transposing  the  key  is  mastered  one  can  dip  into  this  tepid  stream 
on  every  page.  Cabell  has  cleansed  his  bosom  of  much  perilous  stuff — a  little  too 
much,  in  fact,  for  Jurgen  grows  tiresome  toward  the  end — but  he  has  said  every 
thing  about  the  mechanics  of  passion  and  said  it  prettily.  He  has  a  gift  of  dulcet 
English  prose,  but  I  like  better  the  men  who  say  things  straight  out  and  use  gruff 
Anglo-Saxon  monosyllables  for  the  big  facts  of  nature  that  we  are  supposed  to 
ignore . 

It  is  curious  how  the  non-reading  public  discovered  Jurgen.  A  few  days 
after  it  appeared  on  the  newsstands  a  male  vampire  of  the  films  who  once  bought 
Stevenson's  Underwoods  in  the  belief  that  it  was  a  book  of  verses  hymning  a 
typewriter,  began  saying  up  and  down  Broadway:  "Say,  kid,  get  a  book  called 
Jurgen.  It  gets  away  with  murder." 

This  sold  the  first  edition  quickly.    How  do  they  discover  these  things? 

Walter  J.  Kingsley. 


Mr.  John  S.  Sumner,  secretary  to  the  New  York  Society  for 
the  Suppression  of  Vice,  declares,  in  a  letter  which  is  herein  quoted, 
that  Jurgen  "was  first  brought  to  our  attention  by  a  correspondent 
who  forwarded  a  clipping  of  the  New  York  Tribune  .  .  ." 

After  January  3rd,  the  game  of  "transposing  the  key"  of  Jurgen 
went  merrily  forward.  An  astounding  exhibit  of  perverse  ingenuity 
might  be  assembled  by  anyone  who  cared  to  collect  the  interpreta 
tions  that  have  (since  January  3rd)  been  fastened  upon  Jurgen. 
The  Emergency  Committee,  at  any  rate,  can  testify  to  having  re- 


questioned..  .  .  Strong  meat,  my  masters  of  forty-and-something,  in  Jurgen,  and  if  you  find 
something  of  truth  in  a  comparison  between  your  wanderings  and  those  of  Jurgen,  the  better  reason 
for  ordering  the  book  burned  in  the  public  square.  .  .  .  Possibly  when  Jurgen  has  passed  through 
the  house  of  the  Master  Philologist  and  its  hero  pronounced  a  nature  myth  and  properly  explained 
away  it  will  be  generally  read  in  expurgated  versions  for  the  beauty  of  its  language." 

"W.  H.  C.,  in  the  New  York  Tribune,  Oct.  18,  1919:  "Mr.  Cabell  is  not  squeamish  about 
using  sex  as  a  background  for  humorous  situations  ..." 

H.  W.  Boynton,  in  the  (New  York)  Review,  Oct.  15,  1919:  "Hera  are  eloquence  and  a  nimble 
fancy,  a  darting  eye  and  a  musing  brain  behind  it,  playfulness,  malice,  tenderness — indecency. 
For  it  is  a  book  of  male  humor  in  the  good  and  less  good  senses — frank — 'Rabelaisian*  .  .  .  Our 
jester's  erotic  symbolism  is  over-insistent,  and  so  mars  a  fantasy  which  contains  much  beauty, 
in  substance  as  well  as  in  form." 

Edward  S.  Everett,  in  The  Detroit  News,  Nov.  30,  1919:  ".  .  .  has  as  its  chief  quality  a 
certain  adroit  and  many-sided  perversity." 

16 


ceived  a  liberal  education  in  the  refinements  of  moral  turpitude  to 
which  those  bent  upon  discovering  nastiness  can  descend. 

But  it  is  not  our  object  to  pass  judgment  upon  the  minds  of 
those  who  make  it  a  business  to  glut  over  the  actual  or  imagined 
indecencies  of  any  work  of  art.  Nor,  be  it  clearly  understood,  has 
the  Committee  undertaken  to  defend,  explain,  or  deny  the  alleged 
"obscenity"  of  Jurgen.  Mr.  Cabell  has  stated  his  case,  and  there 
is  no  further  need  to  comment  upon  this  aspect  of  the  question. 

The  Emergency  Committee  came  into  existence  for  the  pur 
pose  of  protesting  against  a  law  and  a  particular  organization  having 
the  power  to  prevent  the  circulation  of  works  of  art.  Believing 
that  Jurgen  is  a  work  of  art,  the  Committee  is  ready  to  defend  it 
on  that  ground  alone. * 

On  January  i4th,  1920,  representatives  of  the  New  York 
Society  for  the  Suppression  of  Vice  entered  the  offices  of  Robert  M. 
McBride  &  Company  with  a  summons  for  Mr.  McBride  and  a 
warrant  authorizing  the  seizure  of  all  plates,  copies  and 
sheets  of  Jurgen.  The  publisher  was  charged  with  violating  Section 
1141  of  the  Penal  Code  of  the  State  of  New  York,  in  publishing 
Jurgen,  "a  certain  offensive,  lewd,  lascivious  and  indecent  book." 
Plates  and  books  were  seized  and  taken  away.  In  the  absence  of 
Mr.  McBride,  Mr.  Guy  Holt,  the  secretary  of  the  company,  an 
swered  the  summons,  and  appeared  in  court  the  following  day. 
The  hearing  was  set  for  January  23rd.  The  formal  charge,  a  copy 
of  which  follows,  was  presented  on  January  1 5th: 


:By  way  of  indicating  that  there  are  at  least  two  ways  of  looking  at  Jurgen,  we  print  the 
following  copy  of  an  affidavit: 

"The  undersigned,  Paul  Jordan  Smith,  a  lecturer  for  the  University  of  California,  Extension 
Division,  and  for  ten  years  occupied  in  either  reviewing  books  or  teaching  general  literature,  hereby 
declares  that  he  had  read  and  given  lectures  on  the  books  of  one  James  Branch  Cabell,  and  that 
he  has  found  them  clean,  and  wholesome  and  stimulating,  both  in  content  and  expression;  and 
that  in  his  experience  with  the  classes  of  adult  men  and  women  no  one  has  found  them  in  any  sense 
objectionable. 

"He  further  affirms  that  in  a  course  in  The  Development  of  the  Novel  given  in  Los  Angeles, 
California,  and  ending  in  January  of  this  present  year,  IQZO,  he  lectured  on  Jurgen, a  novel  by 
the  aforementioned  James  Branch  Cabell,  and  that  it  was  read  by  his  class  without  criticism; 
on  the  contrary  it  received  the  highest  praise. 

"Finally  the  undersigned  declares  that,  in  his  opinion,  Jurgzn  is  a  notable  contribution  to 
American  literature,  and  far  from  being  obscene  is  a  fine  and  enduring  piece  of  fiction,  suitable 
for  general  reading. 

(Signed)  Paul  Jordan  Smith. 

Claremont,  California. 
February  18,  1910. 

Subscribed  and  sworn  to  before  me  this  zoth  day  of  February,  igzo. 
(Signed)         Harry  F.  Belcher,  Notary  Public." 

17 


"January  i5th,  1910. 


John  S.  Sumner,  Agent  New  York  Society  for  the  Suppression 
of  Vice,  being  duly  sworn,  says:  That  on  the  6th  day  of  January, 
1920,  and  prior,  and  sworn  thereto  at  the  city  and  county  aforesaid 
Robert  M.  McBride  &  Company,  a  corporation,  and  Guy  Holt, 
manager  of  said  corporation,  Book  Department,  did  at  No.  31  East 
ijth  Street  in  the  city  and  county  aforesaid,  unlawfully  print,  utter, 
publish,  manufacture  and  prepare,  and  did  unlawfully  sell  and  offer 
to  sell  and  have  in  their  possession  with  intent  to  sell  a  certain 
offensive,  lewd,  lascivious  and  indecent  book,  in  violation  of  Section 
1 1 4 1  of  Penal  Code  of  the  State  of  New  York .  At  the  time  and  place 
aforesaid,  the  said  Robert  M.  McBride  &  Company  by  and  through 
its  officers,  agents  and  employees  did  print,  publish,  sell  and  dis 
tribute  and  on  information  and  belief  of  the  said  Guy  Holt  did 
prepare  for  publication  and  cause  to  be  printed,  published,  sold 
and  distributed  a  certain  book  en  titled  JUT  gen  by  one  James  Branch 
Cabell,  which  said  book  represents  and  is  descriptive  of  scenes  of 
lewdness  and  obscenity,  particularly  upon  pages  56,  57,  58,  59, 
61,  63,  64,  67,  80,  84,  86,  89,  92,  93,  98,  99,  100,  103,  104,  105,  106, 
107,  108,  114,  1*0,  114,  125,  127,  128,  134,  135,  I4*>  144,  148,  149. 
150,  152,  153,  154,  155,  156,  157,  158,  161,  162,  163,  164,  165,  166, 
167,  168,  170,  171,  174,  175,  176,  177,  186,  196,  197,  198,  199,  200, 
203,  206,  207,  211,  228,  229,  236,  237,  238,  239,  241,  242,  271,  272, 
275,  286,  321,  340,  342,  343,  thereof,  and  which  said  book  is  so 
obscene,  lewd,  lascivious  and  indecent  that  a  minute  description  of 
the  same  would  be  offensive  to  the  Court  and  improper  to  be  placed 
upon  the  records  thereof:  Wherefore  a  fuller  description  of  the 
same  is  not  set  forth  in  the  complaint."1 

On  January  23rd,  Mr.  Holt  appeared  in  court,  pleading  Not 
Guilty. 


1  "The  second  count  of  the  indictment  did  not  set  forth  the  book,  or  any  part  thereof,  but 
alleged  that  it  was  so  obscene  that  it  would  be  offensive  to  the  court  and  improper  to  be  placed 
on  the  record  thereof,  and  therefore  the  jurors  did  not  set  it  forth  in  the  indictment."  (1811) 
Conn  vs.  Holmes,  17  Mass.,  336. 

"The  rules  of  criminal  pleading  do  not  require  the  indictment  to  set  forth  the  evidence,  or  to 
negative  every  possible  theory  of  the  defence."  Evans  vs.  U.  S.,  153  U.  S.,  584. 

The  prosecution,  then,  may  be  assumed  to  state  facts,  whereas  the  defence  is  merely  stating 
theory. 

18 


The  case  was  then  committed  for  trial  in  the  Court  of  Special 
Sessions.  Two  weeks  later  Mr.  Holt,  representing  the  publisher, 
appeared  before  the  Court  of  Special  Sessions.  The  trial  was  set 
for  March  8th. 

In  February  the  publisher  retained  Mr.  John  Quinn,of  Quinn 
and  Crowell,to  act  as  trial  counsel.  Mr.  Quinn  appeared  before 
Judge  Malone  in  the  Court  of  General  Sessions  and  moved  for  a 
transfer  of  the  case  to  the  Court  of  General  Sessions.  The  motion 
was  granted  and  the  case  placed  on  the  Grand  Jury  docket.  The 
Grand  Jury  indicted  Guy  Holt,  Robert  M.  McBride,  and  Robert 
M.  McBride  &z  Company,  on  a  charge  of  violating  Section  1141  of 
the  Penal  Code  of  the  State  of  New  York. 

On  May  ijth  the  publishers  pleaded  Not  Guilty.  They  are 
now  awaiting  trial,  the  date  for  which  has  not  been  fixed. 

Shortly  after  the  action  of  the  so-called  "Vice"  or  "Comstock 
Society"  became  known,  Edward  Hale  Bierstadt,  Sidney  Howard,1 
and  the  writer  of  the  present  report,  organized  themselves  into  an 
Emergency  Committee  for  the  purpose  of  drawing  up  and  distrib 
uting  a  protest  against  the  action  of  the  Society  in  suppressing 
Jurgen,  and  in  general  against  the  practices  of  that  Society  which, 
in  their  opinion,  constitute  a  menace  to  the  development  of  Amer 
ican  art,  and  a  nuisance  to  American  publishers  and  readers. 

The  Emergency  Committee,  realizing  that  no  time  was  to  be 
lost  if  their  protest  were  to  be  effective  before  the  trial,  determined 
to  distribute  copies  of  the  protest  without  forming  a  "society"  or 
enlisting  the  support  of  the  Authors'  League  of  America,2  pre 
sumably  the  proper  organization  to  undertake  such  work. 

A  short  list  of  writers  was  first  compiled,  and  the  following 
form-letter,  together  with  the  protest,  sent  out: 


lMr.  Howard,  after  the  termination  of  the  active  work  of  the  Committee,  withdrew  from  it. 
While  he  has  been,  and  is,  in  hearty  agreement  with  the  aims  of  the  Committee,  he  cannot  be  held 
responsible  for  the  final  report. — B.  H.  C. 

2The  Authors'  League  was  asked  what  action  it  was  willing  to  take,  and  replied  that  "the 
Committee  came  to  the  conclusion  that  it  would  be  best  to  follow  the  policy  which  had  been  held 
for  some  years,  that  it  would  be  inadvisable  for  the  League  to  take  issue  on  the  censorship  question 
in  an  individual's  case.  The  Committee,  however,  is  considering  ways  and  means  of  taking  up 
the  general  question  of  censorship  in  some  effective  way." 

19 


EMERGENCY  COMMITTEE 
Edward  Hale  Bierstadt 
Sidneyi  Howard 
Barrett  H.  Clark,  Secretary 

124  East  28th  Street, 
New  York  City. 

February  13,  1920. 
Dear  Sir:1 

We  have  taken  it  upon  ourselves  to  draw  up  the  enclosed  protest  and  sub 
mit  a  copy,  asking  you  to  sign  it  and  return  it  to  us  in  case  you  agree  with  its 
provisions.  We  purpose  sending  copies  of  the  signed  protest  to  the  press,  in  the 
hope  that  some  more  effective  means  may  be  taken  to  put  a  stop  to  the  high 
handed  methods  of  the  vice-crusaders,  and  in  any  event  with  the  earnest  desire 
that  a  number  of  representative  American  writers  may  put  their  feelings  in  the 
matter  upon  record. 

Perhaps  you  have  not  read  the  book  whose  "morality"  is  called  into  question; 
if,  however,  you  subscribe  to  the  principles  upon  which  this  protest  is  based  in 
general  (or  if  you  would  even  care  to  change  the  wording),  and  wish  to  reserve 
judgment  upon  Jurgen  in  particular,  would  you  kindly  make  this  clear  and 
authorize  us  to  put  your  name  down  among  those  who  protest  "in  general"? 

We  ask  you  to  overlook  this  method  of  writing  to  you,  but  as  immediate 
action  is  required  (the  trial  is  set  for  March  8),  and  we  have  more  letters  to  send 
out  than  we  could  possibly  write  by  ordinary  means,  we  trust  you  will  pardon  the 
mimeograph. 

Faithfully  yours, 

Barrett  H.  Clark, 

Secretary. 

Below  is  the  protest  form: 

EMERGENCY  COMMITTEE 
Edward  Hale  Bierstadt 
Sidney  Howard 
Barrett  H.  Clark,  Secretary 

124  East  28th  Street, 
New  York  City. 

February  14,  1920. 

We,  the  undersigned,  American  writers  vitally  concerned  for  the  legitimate 
freedom  of  artistic  expression  in  the  United  States,  protest 

1 .  Against  what  we  hold  to  be  the  arbitrary  and  unjustifiable  charge  pre 
ferred  by  the  New  York  Society  for  the  Suppression  of  Vice  against  the  publisher 
of  James  Branch  Cabell's  Jurgen  (as  an  "offensive,  indecent,  lewd,  obscene,  and 
lascivious"  book),  and  the  suppression  of  the  same  pending  trial;  and 

2.  Against  the  methods  of  that  Society,  an  organization  which  we  claim 
to  be  an  unrepresentative  body  of  people  exercising  disproportionate  influence, 
and  which  by  repeated  actions  in  suppressing  many  works  of  genuine  artistic 
merit,  tends  to  discourage  and  inhibit  the  development  of  literature; 

3.  Against  the  law,  which  was  framed  by  the  founder  of  the  Society,  and 
which  is  eminently  unfair  in  that  it  makes  no  distinction  between  art  and  por 
nography  and   is  so  worded    as    to    afford    the  publisher  or  writer  no  fair 
opportunity  for  defence;  and 

4.  Particularly  against  the  practices  of  the  New  York  Society  for  the  Sup 
pression  of  Vice  as  an  extra-legal  body,  judging  works  of  art  and  literature  by  no 
standards  except  such  as  it  wishes  to  set  up  in  the  discovery  and  sequestration  of 
individual  passages  deemed  to  be  indecent  and  immoral.     Not  only  does  this 
Society  arbitrarily  seek  out  particular  passages,  it  casts  upon  the  whole  work  the 
stigma  of  moral  corruption  which  of  necessity  must  cling  to  it — even  in  instances 


iAnd  "Dear  Madam:" 

20 


where  the  publisher  is  finally  exonerated — for  years  to  come.  The  judging  of 
works  of  art  by  those  who  are  manifestly  unfit  for  the  work,  who  deem  it  their 
duty  to  look  only  for  the  indecent,  cannot  but  result  in  unfairness  both  to  authors 
and  publishers. 

Believing  that  the  existence  of  a  law  of  this  sort,  and  of  an  organization  like 
the  New  York  Society  for  the  Suppression  of  Vice,  which  oversteps  the  legitimate 
field  of  its  defensible  activities  in  suppressing  pornography,  is  a  very  real  menace 
not  only  to  literary  art  but  to  the  reading  public  at  large,  we  have  hereunto  affixed 
our  signatures  in  protest  against  both  the  law  and  the  Society  which  makes  it  a 
business  to  see  that  the  law  is  enforced. 


Signed . 


To  be  returned  to 
Barrett  H.  Clark 
114  East  i8th  Street 
New  York  City. 


At  the  same  time,  a  very  few  forms  were  sent  to  foreign  writers 
who  were  at  the  time  in  America.  Each  protest  was  marked  "Speci 
men,"  as  the  forms  were  not  intended  to  be  signed  by  any  but 
Americans.  In  spite  of  this,  the  protest  was  signed  unconditionally 
by  Hugh  Walpole,  Padraic  Colum,  St.  John  Ervine,  and  Gilbert 
Cannan.1 

The  returns  from  the  first  series  of  letters  were  gratifying.  In 
view  of  the  fact  that  over  half  of  the  addresses  were  taken  from  an 
edition  of  Who's  Who  compiled  during  the  War;  that  (as  was  later 
learned)  about  thirty  persons  written  to  were  abroad;  and  finally 
that  a  number  of  letters  were  later  received  explaining  that  the  forms 
arrived  too  late  to  be  sent  in  before  March  8th,  the  returns  were 
surprisingly  large. 

A  few  days  later  a  second  list  was  prepared.  The  first  com 
prised  American  writers;  the  second,  though  including  some  writers, 
was  extended  to  include  artists,  critics,  editors,  publishers,  musicians, 
etc.  This  was  likewise  a  small  list.  A  letter  similar  to  the  first, 
together  with  the  protest — both  of  which  were  modified  by  the 
exclusion  of  the  words  "American  writers" — was  sent  out  as  before. 
The  clauses  in  the  protest  and  the  letter  allowing  those  who  wished 
to  protest  "In  General,"  in  the  event  of  their  not  having  read 
Jurgen,  was  in  almost  every  instance  underlined. 

The  returns  this  time  were  not  so  large.  It  was  hardly  to  be 
expected  that  members  of  professions  not  immediately  interested 
in  the  production  or  consumption  of  literature  should  rally  to  the 
support  of  a  book  with  which  most  people  were  not  familiar.  One 
could  not  reasonably  expect  politicians  and  other  public  servants  to 


'Later  by  George  Moore,  to  whom  a  protest  was  sent. 

21 


compromise  their  political  careers  (during  election  year)  by  pro 
testing  against  an  organization  whose  professed  purpose  it  was  to 
purify  the  country.  But  it  was  disappointing  to  find  that  of  the 
thirty-odd  publishers  who  were  asked  to  support  an  effort  to  curb 
the  activities  of  an  organization  that  potentially  threatened  them 
all,  only  seven  replied. 

Had  it  been  possible,  the  Committee  would  have  liked  to  issue 
copies  of  the  protest  for  general  circulation.  But  time  and  a  lack  of 
funds  prevented  this.  However,  a  few  booklovers,  as  private 
individuals,  did  sign  the  protest,  adding  their  names  to  forms 
sent  to  other  persons.  Their  presence  in  the  lists  of  signers 
is  appreciated,  but  it  must  be  understood  that  no  effort  was 
made  to  arouse  the  interest  or  enlist  the  sympathy  of  the  general 
public. 

There  were  eight^  persons  known  to  have  refused  signing  the 
protest;  eight,  that  is,  who  took  the  trouble  to  state  their  reasons. 
We  publish  the  letters  of  four  of  these.  The  others  were  from:  (i) 
a  prominent  American  artist  who  agreed  with  the  aims  of  the  Com 
mittee  on  principle,  but  knowing  nothing  about  Jurgen,  assumed 
that  "it  probably  is  smutty — most  American  things  are."  He  re 
fused  to  allow  his  letter  to  be  published,  on  the  ground  that  he  knew 
nothing  of  the  book.  (2)  From  a  university  professor  who  believed 
and  courteously  stated  that  he  thought  the  book — what  he  had 
read  of  it — objectionable.  (3)  From  a  novelist  who  knew  nothing  of 
Jurgen  or  the  Society,  and  wished  to  act  in  accordance  with  the 
Authors'  League.  (4)  From  a  novelist  who  asked  to  be  forgiven 
for  not  implicating  herself  in  a  matter  of  which  she  knew 
nothing. 

It  was  at  first  intended  to  give  wide  publicity  to  the  protest 
and  the  lists  of  signers,  but  as  the  case  developed,  and  as  the  Com 
mittee  became  more  familiar  with  hitherto  unsuspected  aspects  of  the 
situation,  they  determined  that  for  the  time  being  nothing  further 
should  be  done  with  the  protests.  It  was  later  apparent  that  the 
protest  method  was  all  very  well  so  long  as  it  was  used  simply  as  a 
safety  valve  for  the  pent-up  feelings  of  indignant  writers.  It  was 
also  one  means  of  creating  a  necessary  solidarity  among  a  group 
that  is  by  no  means  organized  for  effective  concerted  action.  But 
the  mere  signing  of  protests  cannot  amend  a  law  or  take  the  juris 
diction  over  works  of  art  out  of  the  hands  of  the  incompetent,  the 
unsympathetic,  the  ignorant,  and  the  fanatical. 

22 


A  knowledge  of  the  laws  framed  by  Anthony  Comstock  and 
the  methods  employed  by  the  society  which  he  founded  will  afford 
one  the  best  insight  into  the  problems  to  be  faced.  There  is  no 
use  in  trying  to  do  away  with  any  vice  society1  so  long  as  the  law  is 
so  phrased  as  to  allow  that  body  to  arbitrate  in  questions  of  art, 
as  distinguished  from  pornography. 

The  Emergency  Committee,  therefore,  came  to  the  conclusion 
that  to  carry  on  an  extended  campaign,  either  on  behalf  of  Jurgen 
or  of  any  other  book,  or  against  any  particular  society,  could  not 
materially  improve  the  situation. 

So  far  as  any  definite  conclusion  can  be  reached  as  to  the  most 
effective  method  of  suppressing  the  suppressors,  it  is  this:  that  the 
law  as  written  by  Anthony  Comstock  and  enforced  by  his  successors 
must  be  radically  amended.  That  law  has  not  only  permitted  gross 
injustice  to  writers,  painters,  sculptors,  and  scientists — without 
mentioning  publishers — it  has  by  reason  of  its  skillfully  worded 
terms  permitted  the  establishment  of  a  mass  of  judicial  decisions 
and  interpretations  the  application  of  which  is  contrary  to  the 
first  principles  of  liberty.2 

Those  Sections  of  the  Codes  of  the  United  States  and  of  the 
State  of  New  York  concerned  with  the  publication  and  distri 
bution  of  obscene  books,  are  reprinted  in  an  appendix  to  the 
present  volume.  To  these  are  added  a  few  of  the  judicial  decisions 
just  referred  to.  These  are  reprinted  from  the  pamphlet  entitled 
MORALS,  Not  Art  or  Literature* 

The  Emergency  Committee  is  now  engaged  in  drafting  an 
amendment  to  the  laws.  It  may  be  briefly  stated  that  the  efforts 


!Even  were  it  possible  to  convict  the  members  and  officers  of  such  a  society  for  the  very  vices 
it  aims  to  suppress  and  thereby  discredit  it  in  the  eyes  of  the  community,  the  law  remains.  For 
an  instance  of  this  method  of  attack,  see  George  Moore's  Avowals,  p.  110  and  following,  wherein 
is  related  the  story  of  Captain  Verney  of  the  English  Vigilance  Society.  "And  one  day  the  news 
arrives  at  the  office  of  the  Vigilance  Society  that  Captain  Verney  has  been  charged  with  the  abduc 
tion  of  a  young  cook.  ...  A  few  days  after  the  magistrate  sent  Captain  Verney  for  trial." 
And  yet — George  Moore  is  still  prosecuted,  though  he  has  lately  published  his  books  for  private 
circulation,  the  only  means  that  will  allow  him  the  freedom  he  requires. 

2For  a  discussion  of  the  whole  subject,  see  H.  L.  Mencken's  illuminating  article  on  Puritanism 
a  Literary  Force.  (A  Book  of  Prefaces,  Kriopf,  New  York.) 

3This  may  be  procured  from  the  offices  of  the  Society,  at  115  West  aind  St.,  New  York. 
The  price  is  fifty  cents. 

23 


of  this  Committee  are  directed  toward  the  passage  of  a  law  requiring 
that  the  work  of  art,  as  distinct  from  the  pornographic  book  or 
picture,  be  judged — should  its  "morality"  be  called  into  question — 
by  those  qualified  to  pass  judgment  upon  it.  The  phrase  "work of 
art"  must,-  of  course,  be  made  to  embrace  every  work  that  may  be 
considered  a  serious  effort;  it  would  be  patently  absurd  to  ask  any 
jury  to  decide  whether  a  book  or  picture  was  or  was  not  an  enduring 
masterpiece.  But  the  distinction  between  the  book  that  treats 
sex  as  a  part  of  life  and  that  which  treats  sex  primarily  for  the 
purpose  of  stimulating  the  sexual  instinct,  is  easily  drawn. 

No  law  or  system  of  legal  precedent  which  upholds,  nay 
demands,  the  suppression  of  a  book  wherein  a  single  passage  may  be 
deemed  to  tend  "to  the  corruption  of  public  morals,"  or  which  may 
be  construed  as  tending  "to  deprave  and  corrupt  those  whose  minds 
are  open  to  such  immoral  influences  and  into  whose  hands  a  publi 
cation  of  this  sort  may  fall,"  can  be  logically  defended  in  a  free 
country.  The  defendant,  under  the  present  laws,  is  not  even  al 
lowed  to  argue  that  the  great  masterpieces  of  all  time  are  as  "offen 
sive"  as  that  for  the  publication  of  which  he  is  indicted. 

Under  the  existing  State  and  Federal  laws  the  defendant  has 
no  chance  to  fight  his  case  upon  its  own  merits.  The  law  which 
allows  the  "morality"  of  the  works  of  Boccaccio,  and  Shakespeare, 
Gautier,  Thomas  Hardy  and  George  Moore,  to  be  judged  by 
magistrates  and  juries,  is  as  antiquated  as  the  Code  of  Lycurgus. 

If  vice  societies  are  to  be  tolerated  at  all — and  the  question  is 
an  open  one — they  should  confine  their  efforts  to  a  definitely  re 
stricted  field.  The  suppression  of  books  and  pictures  produced 
primarily  for  the  purpose  of  stimulating  the  sex  impulse  is  perhaps 
necessary,  though  it  is  not  beyond  all  reason  to  suppose  that  the 
same  (innate  decency  which  forbids  one  parading  the  streets  naked 
might  curb  the  practice  of  distributing  offensive  post-cards.  The 
New  York  Society  of  the  Suppression  of  Vice  has — in  its  own  fa 
natical  way — suppressed  a  vast  amount  of  obscene  matter  which 
ought  not  to  fall  into  the  hands  of  the  "susceptible."  It  is,  by  long 
experience  of  and  first-hand  acquaintance  with  the  sort  of  matter 
it  suppresses,  competent  to  examine  and  judge  the  perverse,  the  in 
decent,  the  obscene.  Where  the  vice  crusaders  have  erred,  and  to 
this  day  continue  to  err,  is  in  imagining  that  the  obscene  is  an  abso 
lute,  unvarying  entity,  to  be  judged  without  reference  to  what  may 
be  termed  the  context.  Because  the  naked  human  body  can  and  does 
arouse  "impure"  thoughts  in  the  "susceptible,"  they  proceed  on  th.e 
assumption  that  nakedness  is  in  itself  obscene.  Long  practice  in 

24 


the  detection  of  "offensive"  matter  has  rendered  the  vice  crusaders 
expert  in  scenting  obscenity  not  only  where  it  exists  but  where  it 
does  not.  „ 

But  if  a  passage  in  a  book  or  single  words  taken  from  their 
context  are  sufficient  grounds  for  legal  suppression,  nothing  would 
be  more  logical  than  to  suppress  the  dictionary — a  volume  containing 
more  offensive,  lewd,  lascivious,  and  indecent  words  than  any  other 
book  in  existence.  The  law  as  amended  must  first  of  all  be  so 
written  as  to  distinguish  between  the  frankly  and  purposely  offen 
sive,  and  (whether  it  be  "exciting"  or  "stimulating,"  or  not)  the 
serious  work  that  attempts  to  reflect  and  interpret  life.  The  first  is, 
of  course,  dangerous  for  the  "susceptible;"  the  second  is  not.  The 
frank  treatment  of  every  aspect  of  life  in  the  hands  of  an  artist,  is 
likely  to  affect  the  young  and  the  susceptible  only  in  so  far  as  life 
itself  will  affect  them.  When  the  vice  crusaders  attempt  to  sup 
press  what  is  exciting  and  stimulating  in  great  art — which  of 
necessity  treats  sex  as  the  tremendously  moving  power  it  is — they 
are  in  effect  attempting  to  suppress  sex  itself. 

The  vice  crusader,  unable,  by  reason  of  long  association  with 
nastiness,  to  differentiate  the  clean  from  the  unclean,  seeks  to 
impose  his  own  necessarily  biased  standards  upon  everyone  who 
might  perchance  be  moved  by  an  instinct  the  nature  of  which  the 
professional  crusader  cannot  understand. 

In  other  words,  the  Bible,  Shakespeare  and  Rabelais — and  all 
of  them  ought  under  our  present  laws  to  be  suppressed — are  in  a 
class  by  themselves.  If  the  enduring  masterpieces  of  the  world  are 
to  be  suppressed,  can  we  hope  ever  to  strive  to  produce  new  master 
pieces?  And  it  may  here  be  once  more  emphasized  that  every  time 
not  only  a  new  book  but  a  "standard  work"  is  suppressed,  the 
imagination  of  the  "susceptible"  is  stirred  by  "unclean  thoughts." 
For  it  is  not  until  the  vice  society  hales  into  court  the  offending 
distributors  of  books  like  Mademoiselle  de  Maupin  that  the  real 
harm  begins.  Jurgen  would  in  all  probability  have  circulated  among 
the  mature  who  read  Baudelaire  and  Anatole  France,  George  Moore 
and  Thomas  Hardy,  had  not  the  New  York  Society  for  the  Sup 
pression  of  Vice  advertised  its  actual  or  imagined  "obscenity"  to 
thousands  of  young  people,  thereby  inviting  them  to  read  it  for  the 
sole  purpose  of  discovering  its  "obscenity."1 


1  "Now,  whenever  I  discover  that  a  group  of  my  fellow-citizens  are  ardently  working  to  prevent 
the  printing  and  circulation  of  a  book  on  the  ground  that  you  and  I  and  everybody  else  would  be 
contaminated  if  we  were  to  see  it,  my  custom  is  to  get  that  book  and  read  it." — A.  F.  L.  in  the 
Baltimore  Sun,  Feb.  19,  IQZO. 

25 


The  suppression  of  Jurgen  has  so  far  resulted  in  the  damaging 
of  the  reputation  of  an  artist,  and  in  the  establishment  of  a  wide 
spread  and  morbid  interest  in  the  book  on  the  part  of  young  people 
of  both  sexes.  Booksellers  in  many  parts  of  the  country  have  tes 
tified  to  the  fact  that  young  men  and  women  in  hundreds  sought 
surreptitiously  to  buy  copies  of  Jurgen  after  the  news  of  its  sup 
pression  was  spread  abroad. 

But  a  change  in  the  tide  is  to  be  observed.  In  November, 
1917,  Mr.  Sumner  brought  charges  against  Mr.  Raymond 
Halsey  of  the  McDevitt-Wilson  Company  of  New  York  for  selling 
Gautier's  Mademoiselle  de  Maupin.  At  the  first  trial  in 
January,  1918,  the  Court  dismissed  the  case  on  the  grounds  that 
the  novel  failed  to  show  any  evidence  of  "obscenity."  Mr.  Halsey 
then  brought  suit  for  damages  on  the  ground  of  malicious  prose 
cution.  Judge  Wagner  ruled  that  since  there  was  no  "probable 
cause"  for  arrest,  the  prosecution  was  "malicious."  Mr.  Halsey 
was  awarded  $1,800  damages.  The  Society  then  appealed.  The 
Judges  of  the  Appellate  Court  were  divided  as  to  the  "probable 
cause,"  and  decided  that  the  case  should  go  to  the  jury.  At  the 
second  trial,  before  Judge  McAvoy,  all  evidence  originally  sub 
mitted,  establishing  the  place  of  Mademoiselle  de  Maupin  as  a 
classic  and  standard  work,  was  ruled  out.  The  Judge,  in  charging 
the  jury,  asserted  his  belief  that  there  was  "probable  cause."  The 
most  important  precedent  established  by  this  case  was  the  Judge's 
insisting  that  the  whole  of  the  novel  be  read  in  court,  in  order  to 
determine  the  alleged  "indecency"  of  its  contents.  The  book  was 
accordingly  read.  The  jury,  after  less  than  an  hour's  deliberation, 
brought  in  a  verdict  in  favor  of  the  prosecution.  The  New  York 
Society  for  the  Suppression  of  Vice  was  forced  to  pay  $2, 500 
damages  and  costs. 

If  every  successful  defendant  were  to  sue  for  damages,  the  vice 
crusaders  might  think  twice  before  deciding  to  bring  charges. 

Jurgen  and  the  Censor  goes  to  press  before  the  final  trial.  The 
documents  herein  printed  are  considered  to  be  of  sufficient  impor 
tance  to  warrant  their  publication  at  this  time.  It  is  with  the  hope 
that  the  volume  may  focus  attention  upon  a  national  menace  to 
American  art  and  literature  that  it  is  now  made  public. 

26 


If  further  justification  were  needed  for  publishing  this  book, 
the  reader  is  asked  to  consider  once  again  the  implication  beneath 
the  title  of  the  pamphlet  published  by  the  New  York  Society  for 
the  Suppression  of  Vice: 

MORALS,  Not  Art  or  Literature. 

Respectfully  submitted, 

Barrett  H.  Clark. 

New  York  City. 
1 2th  June,  1910. 


27 


"MORALS,  NOT  ART  OR  LITERATURE"* 

By 
EDWARD    HALE    BIERSTADT 


"This  heading,  set  exactly  as  above,  is  the  title  of  a  pamphlet  published  by  the  New  York 
Society  for  the  Suppression  of  Vice  which  sets  forth  the  aim.  purposes,  and  ideals  of  that 
organization. 


"MORALS,  NOT  ART  OR  LITERATURE" 

The  above  title  is  puzzling.  Indeed,  it  has  so  little  obvious  or 
surface  meaning  that  one  is  almost  inclined  to  suspect  some  subtle 
esoteric  significance.  It  reminds  one  at  first  glance  of  the  im 
mortal  Gilbertian  couplet: 

"  'A  fool  is  bent  upon  a  twig,  but  wise  men  shun  a  bandit," — 
Which  is  really  very  clever  if  you  only  understand  it." 

Personally,  I  don't  understand  it  at  all.  "MORALS — Not  Art  or 
Literature;"  it  is  as  though  one  said,  MORALS — Not  Pork  or  Beans. 
It  implies  a  relationship  that  does  not  exist;  it  makes  a  distinction 
between  elements  that  cannot  be  compared;  it  states  dramatically 
a  revelation  that  has  nothing  to  reveal.  It  is  curious,  but  it  is  not 
enlightening. 

In  all  discussions  and  inquiries  it  appears  to  be  almost  axio 
matic  that  one  must  begin  with  a  definition  of  terms.  Let  us  do 
so  then,  but  let  us  make  that  process  as  short  and  painless  as  pos 
sible.  We  may  assume,  or  at  any  rate  I  will,  and  I  hope  you  will 
too  if  only  for  the  sake  of  being  companionable,  that  Morals,  as  it 
is  used  here,  indicates  a  code  of  ethics,  a  formula  of  convention  which 
proceeds  not  from  any  directly  divine  source,  as  when  Jehovah  handed 
the  golden  tablets  containing  the  ten  commandments  to  Moses, 
but  through  the  intensely  human  and  fallible  medium  of  Society 
which  through  all  the  ages  has  endeavored  to  save  its  face  and  pre 
serve  what  it  has  fondly  believed  to  be  its  dignity  at  the  expense 
of  the  minority,  that  minority  which  has  only  "the  inalienable  right 
to  endorse."  I  do  not  for  one  instant  take  up  the  cause,  if  there  be 
a  cause,  of  the  minority  against  the  majority;  the  minority  is  well 
able  to  look  after  its  own  interests;  but  I  do  most  emphatically  de 
sire  to  make  it  plain  that  Morals  in  this  sense  is  as  arbitrary  and  as 
artificial  as  our  legal  code.  Again,  I  do  not  inveigh  against  that 
code.  It  is  obviously  essential  to  our  well  being.  But,  we,  we 
human  beings,  made  it,  and  we  know  that  it  is  neither  absolute  nor 
divine.  At  best  it  is  a  very  poor  approximation  of  what  we  actually 
believe  justice  to  be.  So  it  is  with  Morals.  They  are  what  we  have 
made  them,  and  well  we  know  that  at  best  they  are  only  the  poor 
approximation  of  what  we  would  have  them.  The  imposed  relation 
ship  between  morals  of  this  type  and  our  legal  code  is  too  obvious 
to  dwell  upon.  Witness  Jurgen.  That  morals  in  the  real,  the  actual 
and  absolute  sense  would  concern  themselves  with  Jurgen  we  can- 

31 


not  for  one  instant  believe.  They  would  have  better  sense,  for 
common  sense  and  true  morality  are  twin  sisters.  Morals,  or  to 
phrase  it  more  normally,  the  moralist,  would  well  know  that  if 
Jurgen  were  true  art  it  could  no  more  be  immoral  than  life  itself, 
and  he  would  know  likewise  that  if  it  were  not  true  art,  if  it  were 
spurious,  nothing  in  all  the  whole  wide  world  could  save  it  from 
extinction,  not  even  nastiness  or  the  moralist.  It  would  die  from 
sheer  malnutrition  and  inertia.  So  much  then  for  morals.  We 
have  not  defined  the  term,  it  is  true,  but  we  have  at  least  indicated 
a  basis  for  understanding. 

What  is  the  case  then  with  Art  and  Literature,  or,  not  to  make 
any  distinction  between  the  arts,  Art?  Oddly  enough  it  is  much 
the  same  as  with  Morals.  We  know  that  there  is  in  theory  an  ab 
solute  standard  of  Art,  but  we  do  not  know  just  what  that  standard 
is  any  more  than  we  know  just  what  the  absolute  standard  of  Morals 
is.  So  in  one  event  as  with  the  other;  we  hypothecate  a  working 
standard  which  will  serve  the  practical  purposes  of  the  moment, 
and  which  changes  with  the  flux  and  flow  of  time  as  change  all  other 
things  which  are  of  this  world  only.  And  Art  is  no  more  changed  by 
artists  than  Morals  are  by  moralists.  When  the  world  is  ready  for 
the  change  there  comes  the  "still  small  voice  crying  in  the  wilder 
ness,"  and  the  thing  is  done.  But  these  Morals,  this  code  of  ethics, 
this  procedure  of  behavior,  these  social  usages,  for  actually  they  are 
little  more,  are  not  omniscient.  They  are  not  absolute.  They  may 
indicate  the  way;  they  can  never  enforce  themselves.  A  moralist 
is  no  more  capable  of  judging  a  work  of  art  than  is  a  pure  food  ex 
pert.  And  too  the  question  may  well  be  raised,  are  the  members  of 
such  an  organization  as  the  Society  for  the  Suppression  of  Vice 
moralists  at  all?  No,  surely  not.  They  are  experts  in  immorality, 
that  is  all.  It  is  their  mission,  self  imposed,  as  all  intrusive 
missions  are,  to  deal  in  the  abnormal,  in  the  nasty,  in  the  obscene, 
the  salacious,  the  pornographic.  Does  this  then  qualify  them  to  rec 
ognize,  still  less  to  pass  judgment  on,  a  work  of  art,  a  thing  of 
beauty?  Obviously,  in  the  very  nature  of  things  they  could  not. 
A  child  to  them  is  only  a  potential  sinner;  a  rose  to  them  is  merely 
a  means  of  seduction.  These  then  are  our  judges.  I  do  not  by  any 
means  intend  to  picture  these  men  as  monsters,  but  I  do  mean  to 
suggest  that  it  would  be  well  nigh  impossible  for  any  men  to  devote 
themselves  exclusively  over  a  period  of  years  to  a  concentration  on 
the  vicious  without  being  affected  by  it.  Their  point  of  view  be 
comes  inevitably  warped,  their  judgment  is  biased,  and  they  be- 

32 


come  themselves  subject  to  perverse  delusions.  It  is  not  that  they 
are  fundamentally  unlovely  or  incapable  in  themselves,  but  that 
their  work  has  created  a  direct  tendency  for  them  to  be  both  of  these 
things.  Mind  !  I  do  not  say  that  they  are  anything  unpleasant. 
I  have  too  great  a  respect  for  the  laws  of  libel  to  say  anything  of 
the  kind.  But — taking  all  else  into  consideration,  it  would  be  un 
reasonable  to  suppose  their  attitude  of  mind  to  be  entirely  healthy. 
To  this  type  of  mind  the  only  difference  perceptible  between  "In 
timations  of  Immortality,"  and  "Imitations  of  Immorality"  is 
that  suggested  by  a  rearrangement  of  a  small  portion  of  the  al 
phabet. 

To  cite  examples  in  a  discussion  of  the  right  of  censorship  in 
art  would  be  futile.  The  list  of  masterpieces  which  might  and  at 
various  times  have  come  within  the  scope  of  such  a  censorship 
would  be  far  too  long  for  inclusion  here.  It  would  begin  with  the 
literature  of  the  golden  age  of  Greece,  and  would  proceed  through 
the  ages,  carrying  with  it  nearly  every  great  name  which  genius 
has  graven  on  imperishable  tablets.  But  absurd  as  that  would 
unquestionably  make  the  censorship  appear  it  still  would  be  but 
symptomatic  in  its  treatment  of  the  issue.  It  begs  the  question: 
Does  a  direct  relationship  exist  between  Morals  as  they  are  con 
stituted  in  this  world,  and  Art?  And,  if  such  a  relationship  does 
exist,  does  it  give  either  one  of  the  two  the  right  to  correct,  control, 
or  to  readjust  the  other?  To  both  these  queries  we  may  answer 
No,  and  we  may  say  this  in  our  most  emphatic  manner.  There  is 
not  nor  can  there  ever  be  such  a  relationship,  except  that  wholly 
false  one  which  is  hypothecated  by  the  pseudo-moralists  in  order 
that  they  may  grow  fat  upon  the  filth  of  their  own  creation  in  the 
desire  that  their  obesity  shall  extend  from  their  brains  to  their 
purses.  The  point  of  view  of  these  persons  is  well  exemplified  by 
the  translation  of  that  college  freshman  who  construed  the  "Apol 
ogia  Pro  Vita  Sua"  as  "an  apology  for  living  in  a  sewer."  There 
are  those,  however,  who  do  not  apologize. 

Negative  morality  is  but  a  poor  thing  at  best.  We  may  trace 
it  in  the  "horrible  example"  which  prevailed  upon  the  lecture  plat 
form  in  those  halcyon  days  before  Prohibition  astonished  its  warmest 
adherents  by  becoming  a  fact.  But  the  horrible  example  did  not 
make  Prohibition.  Indeed  it  did  little  more  than  create  a  thirst, 
and  a  sense  of  envy,  and  hence  after  a  time  the  horrible  example  was 
abandoned.  It  is  so  with  the  "suppression  of  vice."  Granted  that 

33 


it  exists,  and  who  would  deny  it?  and  granted  likewise  that  its 
suppressors  always  know  vice  when  they  see  it,  which  would  be 
most  difficult  to  prove,  is  suppression  after  all  an  effective  measure? 
It  has  been  well  said  that  "the  seed  of  revolution  is  suppression." 
And  then  too  ask  the  psychiatrists;  read  Freud;  delve  into  all  the 
hubbub  of  suppressed  desires  and  observe  their  distressing  con 
clusions!  But,  frivolity  aside,  for  Freud  is  essentially  a  frivolous 
and  romantic  person,  suppression  is  not  of  much  use  in  this  world. 
It  doesn't  work.  The  doctors  tell  us  that  if  we  remove  a  bad 
habit,  without  doing  anything  more  about  it,  we  leave  a  pleasing 
blank  spot  upon  which  another  bad  habit  may  form.  It  is  neces 
sary,  it  appears,  to  create  a  good  habit  which  will  crowd  out  the 
bad  one,  and  cause  it  to  flee  in  dismay.  The  white  corpuscles  of 
health  eat  the  red  ones  of  disease,  or  vice  versa.  (My  argument  is 
becoming  so  scientific  that  I  can't  even  follow  it  myself,  so  we  had 
better  begin  a  new  paragraph) .  That  is  a  positive  philosophy  at 
least,  in  contradistinction  to  suppression  which  is  a  negative  one. 
There  is  that  much  gained,  and  it  is  not  a  little. 

It  is  not  necessary,  however,  to  view  this  problem  from  a 
medicinal,  a  judicial,  a  legal  or  even  from  a  moral  standpoint;  it 
is  only  necessary  to  look  for  a  moment  through  the  ever  reassuring 
glasses  of  sanity,  of  common  sense.  Having  done  this  we  shall  see 
several  things  clearly.  One,  that  if  the  vicious,  as  it  is  artificially 
conceived,  does  not  die  of  itself,  as  most  of  us  feel  that  it  will,  no 
amount  of  suppression  is  going  to  kill  it.  It  will  simply  disappear  in 
one  place  to  crop  up  in  another.  Advertise  it,  make  hue  and  cry 
over  it,  and  the  unclean  thing  is  fed,  and  fattens;  withdraw  your 
hand  from  it,  and  it  will  effect  its  own  demise  with  hardly  even  a 
struggle.  Next,  that  judgment  by  a  jury  of  one's  peers  is  an  es 
sential  of  our  common  law;  and  that  such  judgment  is  denied  the 
artist  when  he  is  judged,  and  usually  condemned  in  advance,  by 
those  whose  livelihood  is  gained  by  seeking  industriously  the  smut 
marks  on  the  pages  of  life.  After  such  a  search  we  are  able  to  find 
dirt  where  there  was  none.  It  is  enough.  If  there  is  to  be  sup 
pression  let  it  begin  at  home;  let  the  suppressors  suppress  themselves, 
and  let  us  observe  this  evidence  of  good  faith  on  their  part  with  the 
calm  of  the  dispassionate  inquirer.  It  may  be  that  in  this  event  we 
shall  discover  that  suppression  is  not  such  a  bad  thing  after  all, 
and  if  so  we  shall  admit  bravely  that  we  were  mistaken. 

The  judging  of  Jurgen  has  recoiled  upon  the  judges  themselves. 
It  has  made  us  acutely  aware  that  no  such  judgment  is  possible  in 
the  very  nature  of  things,  and  that  even  were  it  possible  it  would  be 
ill  advised;  we  have  become  cognizant  of  the  fact  that  the  prose- 

34 


cuting  attorney  has  of  himself  created  the  laws  under  which  both 
judge  and  jury  act,  and  that  the  defendant  is  not  even  allowed  the 
hollow  semblance  of  a  fair  trial. 

These  things  are  unjust  in  a  country  which  has  taken  justice 
for  its  motto;  they  are  tyrannical  in  a  nation  that  was  born  free; 
they  are  barbaric  in  an  age  that  lays  any  claim  to  civilization;  and, 
first  and  last  of  all,  they  are  supremely  silly.  There  is  only  one 
unforgivable  sin  in  life,  and  that  is  willful  ignorance,  which  is 
stupidity,  for  stupidity  means  blindness,  and  blindness  means 
death,  to  a  man,  to  an  art,  or  to  an  era. 


35 


THE  SIGNERS  OF  THE  PROTEST 
Americans  Who  Signed  without  Reservations 


ROBERT  HERRICK 

AMY  LOWELL 

GRANT  M.  OVERTON 

HARVEY  O'HIGGINS 

Louis  UNTERMEYER 

JOEL  ELIAS  SPINGARN 

RALPH  HENRY  BARBOUR 

ISAAC  GOLDBERG 

CLAYTON  HAMILTON 

FANNIE  HURST 

THOMAS  H.  DICKINSON 

CARL  VAN  VECHTEN 

SINCLAIR  LEWIS 

WALTER  PRICHARD  EATON 

AMELIE  RIVES  TROUBETZKOY 

BLISS  CARMAN 

["Most  emphatically  and 
abomination  for  the  Society 
mentioned."] 

BOOTH  TARKINGTON 

HARRIET  FORD 

MICHAEL  MONAHAN 

WILL  PAYNE 

VAN  WYCK  BROOKS 

STEWART  EDWARD  WHITE 

ZOE  AKINS 

WITTER  BYNNER 

UPTON  SINCLAIR 

JAMES  GIBBONS  HUNEKER 

WlLLA   SlBERT  GATHER 

WILSON  FOLLETT 
HELEN  THOMAS  FOLLETT 
HERBERT  ADAMS  GIBBONS 
OTIS  SKINNER 
HARRY  HANSEN 
BERT  L.  TAYLOR 
BOARDMAN  ROBINSON 

["In  general  and  in  particular. 
JOHN  POWELL 
ARTHUR  HOPKINS 
ROBERT  EDMOND  JONES 
JOHN  BARRYMORE 
RUTH  HALL 
CLINTON  T.  BRAINERD 
EMILIE  HAPGOOD 
LILITH  BENDA 


EDWIN  ARLINGTON  ROBINSON 

MONTROSE  J.  MOSES 

EDWARD  SHELDON 

HEYWOOD  BROUN 

HARRY  LEON  WILSON 

H.  L.  MENCKEN 

JOSEPH  HERGESHEIMER 

OLIVER  M.  SAYLER 

WILLIAM  ROSE  BENET 

PETER  MICHAELSON 

ARTHUR  DAVISON  FICKE 

THEODORE  DREISER 

["Far    more    important    than    this 

written  protest  would  be  a  defense 

fund  subscribed  by  writers  and  their 

friends,  which  same  I  have  advocated 

with          for  the  last  five  years.  Then  the  man 

above         could  be  properly  defended  without 

expense  to  him."] 

EDWIN  BJORKMAN 

LAWRENCE  GILMAN 

GEORGE  JEAN  NATHAN 

ALGERNON  TASSIN 

CHANNING  POLLOCK 

JAMES  METCALFE 

AVERY  HOPWOOD 

B.  W.  HUEBSCH 

THOMAS  L.  MASSON 

JOHN  MCCLURE 

L.  M.  HUSSEY 

W.  J.  HENDERSON 

W.  A.  NEILSON 

EUNICE  TIETJENS 

FANNIE  BUTCHER 

CARL  VAN  DOREN 

MEREDITH  JANVIER 

JOSEPH  A.  MARGOLIS 
']  ALFRED  F.  GOLDSMITH 

R.  M.  BROECKEL 

MARY  HASTINGS  BRADLEY 

CHARLES  COLLINS 

THEODORE  KEANE 

EUGENE  G.  O'NEILL 

["I  have  read  Jurgen,  and  therefore 
sign  this  all  the  more  emphatically."] 

JOHN  RUHRAH 
37 


W.    WOOLLCOTT 

RICHARD  H.  WORTHINGTON 
HARRY  C.  BLACK 
JACK  R.  CRAWFORD 
G.  LANE  TANEYHILL 
ALFRED  A.  KNOPF 
BURTON  RASCOE 
JOHN  ERSKINE 


HORACE  B.  LIVERIGHT 
ALBERT  JAY  NOCK 
JAMES  HOWARD  KEHLER 
SIDNEY  HOWARD 
BARRETT  H.  CLARK 
EDWARD  HALE  BIERSTADT 
PHILIP  MOELLER 
GEORGE  GORDON 


Americans  Who  Signed  "In  General": 


SAMUEL  J .  HUME 

THOMAS  BIRD  MOSHER 

J.  JEFFERSON  JONES 

S.  H.  CLARK 

JACOB  S.  FASSETT,  JR. 

RICHARD  J.  MONTAGUE 

WALTER  LIPPMANN 

GEORGE  CREEL 

ETHEL  COOK  ELIOT 

ABBIE  W.  FORD 

KENNETH  MACGOWAN 

FREDERICK  S.  HOPPIN 

S.  SHIPMAN 

WALTER  ADOLPHE  ROBERTS 

WILLIAM  SALISBURY 

PAULINE  BROOKS  CRAWFORD 

ROBERT  W.  SNEDDON 

HOWARD  BROCKWAY 

DANIEL  GREGORY  MASON 

MRS.  DANIEL  GREGORY  MASON 

HOWARD  Me  A.  BALDWIN 

RAY  T.  MORGAN 

BERTRAM  B.  TATE 

LANDER  MACCLINTOCK 

OWEN  WISTER 

HARRIET  MONROE 

MARY  AUSTIN 

OTTO  HELLER 

CALE  YOUNG  RICE 

SAMUEL  A.  ELIOT,  JR. 

HENRY  SYDNOR  HARRISON 

GELETT  BURGESS 

["Not  having  read  Jurgen  I  can  sub 
scribe  only  to  the  general  statement 
as  above — but  to  that  with  all  my 
heart.— G.  B."] 

GEORGE  C.  HAZELTON,  JR. 

MARY  E.  WILKINS  FREEMAN 
["After  eliminations."*] 


B.  M.  HERRICK 

P.  M.  HICKS 

H.  C.  GODDARD 

EDWARD  HOWARD  GRIGGS 

JULIA  C.  LATHROP 

["Although  I  am  unacquainted  with 
this  book,  I  am  fully  acquainted  with 
other  actions  of  a  similar  character 
taken  by  the  Society,  and  I  believe 
its  methods  are  against  the  public 
weal."] 

CAROLINE  FLEMING 

HARRIET  ANDERSON 

HELEN  M.  DART 

ANNA  E.  RUDE 

E.  NATHALIE  MATHEWS 

JOHN  M.  MANLY 

JAMES  WEBER  LINN 

EDITH  J.  R.  ISAACS 

SHELDON  CHENEY 

FRANK  W.  RYAN 

MARIE  PRIOR  RYAN 

CARLO  DE  FORNARO 

HERMANN  HAGEDORN 

CHRISTOPHER  MORLEY 

WILLIAM  LYON  PHELPS 

RICHARD  BURTON 

WILLIAM  ALLEN  WHITE 

CHARLES  RANN  KENNEDY 

ARTHUR  GUITERMAN 

["Not  having  yet  read  Jurgen,  I  am 
obliged  to  limit  myself  to  joining  in  a 
general  protest  against  what  I  feel 
to  be  the  arbitrary,  narrow-minded 
and  unfair  methods  of  censoring 
literature  in  vogue  in  the  State  of 
New  York."] 

GEORGE  MIDDLETON 

GERALD  STANLEY  LEE 


•See  letter  page  48 


38 


Foreigners  Who  Signed  Without  Reservations: 

PADRAIC  COLUM  GEORGE  MOORE 

RICHARD  LE  GALLIENNE  ST.  JOHN  ERVINE 

PIERRE  TROUBETZKOY  fA.  Z.  L6PEZ-PENHA 

GILBERT  CANNAN  \Luis  CARLOS  LOPEZ 

HUGH  WALPOLE  [After  the  words  "United  States"  in 

("Delighted    to   sign— with    all    my          Section  2 :  "One  of  the  biggest  leading 
heart  I  agree.— H.  W."]  nations  in  the  world."     (Cartagena, 

Colombia.)] 


39 


LETTERS  TO  THE  EMERGENCY  COMMITTEE 

The  following  letters  were  received  by  the  Secretary  during  and 
immediately  after  the  sending  out  of  the  form  letters  and  protests.  The 
Committee  herewith  acknowledges  its  gratitude  to  the  writers  for  their 
permission  to  use  these  letters. 

JOSEPH  HERGESHEIMER 

The  Dower  House 
West  Chester,  Pennsylvania 

The  suppression  of  Mr.  Cabell's  Jurgen,  it  seems  to  me,  is  one 
of  the  most  surprising  attacks  on  the  liberty  of  beauty  which  it 
is  possible  to  conceive.  It  is  specially  maddening  because  Mr. 
Cabell  for  years  has  devoted  himself  to  a  singularly  pure  theme — 
the  spirituality  of  love.  He  is  a  novelist  of  grave  judgment,  re 
markable  fineness,  and  the  master  of  an  invaluable  and  delicate 
art.  We  have  few  such  and,  judging  from  the  treatment  awarded 
him,  we  shall  soon  have  none.  There  is  only  one  way  by  which 
the  decency  of  a  novel  may  be  tested — by  the  writer's  intention. 
And  the  fact  that  Mr.  Cabell  is  accused  of  deliberate  obscenity  is, 
except  for  its  tragic  nonsense,  laughable. 

As  I  have  already  written,  this  attack  makes  the  position  of 
every  serious  creative  writer  in  America  precarious;  it  seems  now 
positively  dangerous  to  be  honest,  independent — to  be  anything, 
in  short,  but  the  mouthpiece  of  sentimental  lies,  dishonest  propa 
ganda,  or  current  superstition.  Mr.  Cabell  has  conceived  it  his 
duty  to  write  maturely  for  mature  people;  he  preferred  the  expres 
sion  of  certain  fundamental  principles  to  trotting  at  the  heel  of  a 
cowardly  hypocrisy;  and  in  this  it  begins  to  appear  he  was  wrong. 

Joseph  Hergesheimer. 


The  Chicago  Tribune 
The  World's  Greatest  Newspaper 

Chicago,  Feb.  23,  1920. 

Inclosed  herewith  is  my  signature  to  the  protest.  Please 
accept  my  sincerest  congratulations  on  the  spirit  you  and  your 
associates  are  showing  in  this  matter.  I  hope  that  the  signatures 
will  be  many  and  that  the  protest  will  do  some  good,  not  only 
in  the  case  of  Jurgen  (in  which,  of  course,  I  feel  especial  interest  as 
the  dedicatee), but  in  the  matter  of  literature  in  general.  The  high 
handed  methods  of  the  Society  for  the  Suppression  of  Vice  have 
no  parallel  in  any  civilized  country. 

Sincerely, 

Burton  Rascoe. 
41 


WM.  LYON  PHELPS 

Professor  of  English  Literature 

Yale  University 

New  Haven 

February  25,   1910. 

In  general  I  disapprove  of  literary  censorship  and  of  course  I 
am  willing  to  be  so  quoted.  At  the  same  time,  you  must  not 
quote  me  in  any  way  that  would  seem  to  give  my  approval  to  Jurgen, 
for  the  simple  reason  that  I  have  not  read  the  book. 

Faithfully  yours, 

Wm.  Lyon  Phelps. 


February  26,   1920. 

Here  is  your  petition.  Yes,  I  read  Jurgen  and  thought  it 
both  wise  and  beautiful.  Of  course  it  should  not  be  suppressed; 
but,  on  the  other  hand,  one  is  not  at  all  surprised. 

Yours  sincerely, 

Edward  Sheldon. 


145  West  58th  St. 

February  17,   1920. 

I  am  asked  by  an  "Emergency  Committee"  to  sign  at  once  a 
protest  to  the  publisher  against  the  selling  of  James  Branch  Cabell's 
book,  Jurgen.  I  have  replied  that  I  must  read  the  book  before 
answering.  Can  you  send  it  to  me  immediately? 

Sincerely, 

Kate  Douglas  Wiggin 

February,   1920. 

I  do  not  agree  with  the  point  of  view  in  the  least.  There  are 
great  differences  of  opinion  about  books  among  equally  intelligent 
people.  If  I  knew  the  case  I  should  be  proud  to  resent  an  injustice. 
Not  knowing  it,  I  would  not  sign  a  protest  for  worlds!  How  could 
I?  I  do  not  in  general  believe  in  certain  particular  censorships, 
but  how  am  I  to  tell  whether  I  believe  in  this  one  or  not  without  a 
particle  of  evidence? 

Kate  Douglas  Wiggin. 

42 


1814  Sixteenth  St.,  N.  W. 

Washington,  D.  C. 

February  18,   1920. 

May  I  suggest  that  you  send  petitions  to  obtain  names  pro 
testing  against  the  exclusion  of  Jurgen  to  all  the  magazines '  and 
the  Press  Clubs  in  the  various  cities?  I  am  enclosing  one  with 
several  signatures  obtained  at  the  Press  Club  in  Washington. 

From  speaking  to  a  number  of  men  distinguished  in  literature, 
science,  and  governmental  affairs,  I  have  learned  that  the  more 
understanding  and  important  a  man  is,  the  more  likely  he  is  to 
know  of  and  protest  against  the  outrage  of  banning  Jurgen,  and 
the  more  likely  he  is  to  assert,  as  I  do,  that  not  for  many  years  has 
there  been  produced  in  America  a  book  of  greater  beauty,  more 
dignity,  and  higher  ideals. 

To  stop  the  sale  of  such  a  book,  while  permitting  lewd  plays 
to  continue  on  Broadway,  is  precisely  like  condemning  Rodin's 
The  Thinker  while  permitting  cheap  music  and  picture  stores  all 
over  New  York  to  exhibit  and  sell  openly  obscene  photographs 
...  as  they  do!  The  only  thing  they  have  so  far  omitted  is  to 
ban  The  Thinker  \ 

In  fighting  for  Jurgen,  you  are  serving  the  highest  cause.  We 
have  had  so  few  books  of  sheer  magic  and  beauty  in  this  country 
that  the  thought  of  assailing  Jurgen  is  infuriating.  But  I  am  sure 
that  when  the  book  is  considered  on  the  bench  by  judges  of  culture 
and  learning  they  will  realize  not  only  its  high  beauty  but  also 
the  fact  that  its  intense  sophistication  makes  its  references  to  sex 
not  only  unintelligible  to  those  young  girls  whom,  apparently,  the 
Vice  Society  is  trying  to  protect,  but  actually  highly  uninteresting 
to  them.  To  be  anything  like  consistent  or  just,  it  would  be  abso 
lutely  necessary  for  the  Society  to  ban  all  medical  books,  and  all 
books  of  jurisprudence  touching  on  sex,  if  they  are  to  ban  Jurgen. 

Sincerely  yours, 

Sinclair  Lewis. 


The  New  York  Evening  Post 

February  26. 

I  haven't  read  the  book.  I  have  lost  the  blank  you  sent. 
If  you  care  to  include  my  name  among  the  protestants  on  general 
grounds,  it  being  distinctly  admitted  that  I  haven't  read  this  par 
ticular  work,  pray  do  so! 

Cordially  yours, 

Christopher  Morley, 
43 


337  West  87th  St. 

New  York  City 


February  16,  1910. 

No — I  won't  join  you.  The  Soc.  for  Suppression  of  Vice  is 
probably  making  a  fool  of  itself — as  it  has  done  on  more  than  one 
occasion.  But  I  am  old  enough  to  feel  very  grateful  to  it  for  the 
cleansing  of  the  newsstands  of  N.  Y.  from  what  they  were  fifty 
years  ago.  I  hold  it  to  be  a  most  useful  organization;  and  I  don't 
believe  that  there  is  really  any  danger  here  in  the  U.  S.  in  the 
2oth  century  that  any  true  work  of  art  will  be  suppressed. 

Yours  ever, 
Brander  Matthews. 


The  Cleveland  School  of  Art 

Henry  Turner  Bailey,  Director 

Georgie  Leighton  Norton,  Associate  Director 

Juniper  Road 

Cleveland,  Ohio 


March  i,  1920. 

I  do  not  know  enough  about  the  facts  to  sign  the  document 
you  sent  me. 

While  I  believe  that  in  a  democracy  a  good  deal  of  freedom 
should  be  given  to  the  individual,  I  feel  that  there  are  limits  beyond 
which  an  individual  ought  not  to  be  allowed  to  go,  and  I  am  heartily 
in  favor  of  all  the  societies  that  exist  for  the  reformation  of  the 
vicious.  That  seems  to  me  a  more  hopeful  method  of  attack  than 
the  "suppression  of  vice/'  And  yet  I  do  believe  that  some  sort  of 
censorship  is  necessary  in  these  days  if  America  is  to  continue  to 
be  a  decent  place  in  which  to  bring  up  children. 

Yours  sincerely, 
Henry  T.  Bailey, 
Director. 


New  York,  February  28,  1920. 
With  the  greatest  pleasure.     To  hell  with  them  on  all  counts! 

Lawrence  Gilman. 
44 


Fifteen  West  Sixty-seventh  St. 

February  17,  1920. 

My  wife  is  only  too  glad  to  sign  the  enclosed  paper,  and  only 
regrets  that  her  illness  prevents  her  from  adding  a  personal  expression 
of  her  feelings  and  opinion  in  regard  to  the  treatment  of  Jurgen, 
which  we  read  as  soon  as  it  came  out  and  consider  a  masterpiece 
honoring  American  literature. 

Yours  sincerely, 

Pierre  Troubetzkoy. 


New  York,  February  19,   1910. 

I  am,  of  course,  entirely  in  sympathy  with  the  manifesto 
which  you  sent  me,  and  I  only  wish  I  could  see  my  way  clear  to 
add  my  name  for  what  it  is  worth.  I  feel,  however,  that  the 
attack  is  to  be  made  upon  a  piece  of  legislation  which,  strictly 
speaking,  remains  the  domestic  affair  of  a  country  where  I  am  at 
the  moment  a  visitor.  And  however  strongly  I  may  feel  personally 
about  the  matter  I  think  it  would  be  a  mistake  for  me  to  take  any 
public  stand  about  another  country's  internal  affairs. 

In  England,  I  should  be  with  such  a  protest  and  with  as  loud 
a  voice  as  possible,  but  I  think  that  if  I  did  so  in  America,  I  might 
very  justly  be  told  to  mind  my  own  business,  and  that  no  matter 
how  wrong  the  people  who  said  it  might  be  in  other  ways,  they 
would  certainly  have  right  on  their  side  in  that. 

But  I  wish  every  power  to  your  elbow,  and  I  hope  sincerely 
that  your  note  may  be  effective.  I  write  in  a  general  sense, 
without  reference  to  the  book  in  question,  which  I  have  not  read. 

Very  sincerely  yours, 

John  Drinkwater. 
Repertory  Theatre,  Birmingham,   England. 


1455  Undercliff  Ave. 

New  York  City 

I  haven't  read  Jurgen,  but  I'm  sure  the  case  against  the 
S.F.T.S.O.V.  must  be  a  just  once  since  you  are  helping  to  prose 
cute  it,  and  I'm  glad  to  sign  the  protest. 

Sincerely  yours, 

Harriet  Ford. 
Feb.  19,  1920. 

45 


United  States  Tariff  Commission 
Washington 

EDWARD  P.  COSTIGAN 
Commissioner 


March  3,  1920. 

A  letter  bearing  your  familiar  name  and  calling  attention  to 
the  desirability  of  establishing  in  law  and  recognizing  in  practice 
clear  distinctions  between  art  and  obscenity,  protective  of  the  former 
though  not  of  the  latter,  is  before  me.  The  differentiation  and  the 
principles  you  mention  are  at  once  so  elementary  and  important 
that  I  am  glad  to  join  in  a  general  expression  of  approval  of  those 
objects.  It  is  highly  desirable  that  art  shall  be  judged  by  its  age- 
old  standards  and  by  those  competent  to  apply  them,  and  I  am  one 
of  those  who  earnestly  trust  that  our  lawmakers  and  the  courts  will 
find  it  possible  to  avoid  injustice  with  reference  to  all  genuinely 
artistic  expression.  The  encouragement  and  achievements  of 
human  genius  certainly  deserve  no  less  from  us,  and,  as  a  lawyer, 
I  am  confident  that  it  is  possible,  without  difficulty  both  now  and  in 
the  future,  effectively  to  realize  this  result  through  the  application 
of  the  reasonable  and  accepted  tests  of  public  welfare. 

Very  sincerely, 

E.   P.   Costigan. 


245  Nassau  St., 

Princeton,  N.  J. 


February  14,  1910. 


I  am  often  not  in  sympathy  with  the  methods  adopted  by  the 
New  York  Society  for  the  Suppression  of  Vice.  On  the  other 
hand,  I  am  not  at  all  in  sympathy  with  a  group  of  writers  who 
would  take  any  protest  against  that  Society  as  a  justification  for 
what  they  are  pleased  to  call  art.  The  harm  done  by  the  Society 
seems  to  me  very  slight,  whereas  the  harm  done  by  the  self-styled 
artists  may  be  very  great.  I  feel  obliged  therefore  to  withhold 
my  signature  from  your  circular  protest  of  February  i4th. 

Very  truly  yours, 
Paul  E.  More. 


46 


Los  Angeles,  Calif. 


February  23,   1920. 


I  have  received  and  signed  and  forwarded  the  James  Branch 
Cabell  protest.  But  of  what  use  are  kind  words  to  Mr.  Cabell? 
What  he  needs  and  what  every  independent  thinker  needs  in  these 
acute  hours  is  something  tangible  and  substantial  in  the  way  of 
aid.  There  should  be  a  cash  defense  fund  such  as  for  the  last  five 
years  I  have  advocated,  which  should  be  devoted  to  the  hiring  of 
competent  lawyers  and  the  prosecution  of  these  cattle  in  every 
city  in  which  they  operate — and  they  now  operate  everywhere. 
Such  a  lawyer  or  counsel  of  defense  could  use  the  newspapers, 
as  well  as  the  courts,  and  make  a  showing  of  opposition  at  least. 
As  it  stands  we  have  pale  protests  from  committees  who  ask  authors 
to  sign  them. 

Incidentally,  of  what  use  is  the  Authors'  League  if  not  to  aid 
in  such  a  case  as  this  ?  Is  it  solely  devoted  to  the  task  of  discovering 
where  to  sell  trashy  tenth-rate  material  and  to  coerce  conventional 
publishers  into  paying  large  royalties  on  best  sellers?  The  spec 
tacle!  I  sympathize  with  Mr.  Cabell,  but  I  will  do  more.  I  will 
give  one  hundred  dollars  toward  a  defense  fund  if  others  as  well  or 
better  placed  than  myself  will  do  as  much. 

Theodore  Dreiser. 

P.S.  If  such  a  defense  fund  can  be  gotten  together  it  should 
be  urged  by  all  publishers,  producing  managers,  authors  and  play 
wrights,  as  well  as  book-dealers,  that  they  contribute  liberally,  as 
they  should.  Let  the  matter  of  criticism  of  books,  plays,  etc., 
come  from  the  Attorney  General  at  Washington.  As  it  is  now, 
every  little  tenth-rate  squeak  of  a  minister  or  white  slaver  can  now 
pass  on  France,  Freud,  Andreyeff,  Shestov,  and  who  not  else. 
Think  of  Noa-Noa  being  barred  by  a  mid-western  vice  society! 
These  cattle  must  be  debarred  from  indicting  the  characters  and 
morals  of  their  betters.  Their  muddy  hoofs  dishonor  the  temple. 
It  is  not  for  an  artist  to  defend  himself.  The  state  should  do  it. 
But  pending  the  awakening  of  the  state  let  the  writers  and  pub 
lishers  combine  to  defend  themselves.  I  will  do  whatever  I  can. 


THE  NEW  REPUBLIC 

421  West  21st  St., 

New  York  City 

February  18,  1920. 

I  think  I  belong  to  the  "in  general"  protestants. 

Sincerely  yours, 

Walter  Lippmann. 
47 


Metuchen,  N.  J. 

February  26  1920. 

I  have  not  read  Jurgen,  and  feel  that  in  fairness  to  author 
and  publisher,  I  should  not  judge  on  either  side. 

I  agree  with  you  with  regard  to  your  opinions.  Can  you  use 
the  enclosed? 

Sincerely, 
Mary  E.  Wilkins  Freeman. 

I  don't  know  anything  about  the  Society  or  the  law,  hence 
the  changes  before  signing.  I  hope  you  can  use  one  of  them.  I 
might  do  better  next  time. 

[Additional  Note.] 

I  have  not  read  Madeleine.  I  have  not  read  Jurgen.  I  have 
not  read  any  book  to  which  public  attention  is  called  by  the 
Society  for  the  Suppression  of  Vice. 

I  do  not  think  it  fair  to  the  Society,  to  publisher  or  author,  to 
pass  judgment  upon  a  book  or  measure  of  which  I  am  ignorant. 

I,  however,  do  most  sincerely  think  that  any  Society,  enabled 
by  any  law  to  cast  a  stigma  upon  an  author  or  a  publisher,  unless 
all  the  reasons,  not  in  part,  but  as  a  whole,  are  known  to  the  reading 
public,  should  have  for  its  judges  a  body  of  persons  eminently 
calculated  by  their  own  knowledge  of  literature,  and  art,  and  stand 
ards  of  morality,  to  praise  or  condemn. 

I  also  think  that  no  books  dealing  only  with  the  social  evil 
should  be  chosen  for  examination,  but  those  dealing  with  the  drug 
habit  and  life  of  the  underworld  in  such  a  manner  as  to  fascinate 
young  readers  and  cast  a  gloss  upon  evil  which  may  attract  their 
imagination. 

Mary  E.  Wilkins  Freeman. 


Comarques 
Thorpe-Le-  Soken 

May  17,   1920. 

With  reference  to  your  Emergency  Committee  Protest,  my 
view  is  that  the  police  alone  should  have  the  right  to  prosecute 
an  author.  To  give  to  any  private  society  the  right  to  prosecute 
on  public  grounds  is  bound  to  lead  to  grave  injustice.  In  England 
the  number  of  private  prosecutions  is  now  almost  nil,  and  I  believe 
that  no  effective  private  prosecution  can  be  begun  without  the 
consent  of  the  Attorney  General.  Two  private  societies  in  England 
took  very  strong  objection  to  my  novel— The  Pretty  Lady — not  on 
moral  but  on  sectarian  religious  grounds!  They  demanded  the 
suppression  of  the  book.  As  soon  as  they  discovered  I  was  a  fighter 
they  let  the  matter  drop. 

Yours  faithfully, 

Arnold  Bennett. 
48 


1004  West  End  Trust  Building 
Philadelphia 

April   19,   1920. 

I  cannot  express  any  opinion  about  the  book  of  Mr.  Cabell, 
concerning  which  you  have  written  me,  because  I  have  not  seen  it. 
One  book  of  Mr.  Cabell's  I  know,  and  like.  He  was  good  enough 
to  send  it  to  me  some  years  ago  and  I  had  great  pleasure  in  reading 
the  stories  that  it  contained.  Its  title,  if  I  remember,  was  A 
Certain  Hour. 

In  a  general  way  I  share  the  opinion  which  your  paragraphs 
embody.  I  think,  however,  that  it  is  very  difficult  to  lay  down 
any  rule  for  universal  application.  There  are  certain  themes  which 
should  be  kept  from  the  young,  and  are  kept  from  the  young  in 
countries  like  France.  To  justify  works  of  imagination  upon 
these  themes,  genius,  it  seems  to  me,  is  needed.  For  example, 
the  play  of  Measure  for  Measure  would  be  purely  objectionable  in 
the  hands  of  a  number  of  modern  play  writers  whose  names  I  could 
mention.  I  can  find  but  two  formulas  which  I  can  express  to  you 
in  words,  and  which,  I  think,  represent  my  feelings  upon  the  subject. 

First,  I  think  that  each  individual  case  should  be  judged 
upon  its  merits. 

The  second  formula  is  more  difficult — namely,  who  shall  be 
the  people  to  judge.  Usually  I  find  myself  not  completely  in  sym 
pathy  with  the  sort  of  people  who  associate  themselves  with  the 
suppression  of  vice.  While  their  aim  is  high,  I  am  apt  to  think 
their  judgment  is  somewhat  fallible.  Were  I  to  choose  a  committee 
who  should  act  as  censors  upon  works  of  the  imagination,  whether 
they  be  in  the  form  of  books  or  in  the  form  of  plays,  I  should  want 
a  committee  very  variously  selected.  I  should  like  to  see  upon  it 
one  or  two  writers  of  creative  talent,  one  or  two  enlightened  philan 
thropists,  and  several  men  connected  with  active  business,  such  as 
bankers,  engineers,  manufacturers  of  broad  experience  in  dealing 
with  mankind.  These  men  are  apt  to  take  very  sane  views  and  to 
dislike  extremes.  Their  opinion,  after  conference  with  the  other 
sort  of  people — namely,  artists  and  moralists — would  bring  a 
leaven  that  I  think  wholesome  and  essential. 

Yours  very  truly, 

Owen  Wister. 


2970  Filis  Avenue 
Chicago,  HI. 

With  every  word  in  the  protest  you  are  circulating  with  regard 
to  the  suppression  of  Jurgen  I  am  in  the  heartiest  accord.  If  such 
a  book  can  be  put  out  of  circulation  by  an  irresponsible  committee; 
if  publishers  can  be  penalized  for  issuing  it;  if  an  author  for  writing 
it  can  be  defamed  and  have  his  just  earnings  sequestered,  then 

49 


indeed  every  writer  in  America  who  wants  to  deal  with  the  whole  of 
human  life  will  be  inhibited.  Could  a  Goethe  write  a  Faust  in  a 
country  where  a  book  was  dealt  with  in  such  a  way?  If  the  irre 
sponsible  Committee  in  New  York  want  to  fill  up  their  time,  why 
don't  they  deal  with  the  undraped  ladies  in  the  movie  posters  at 
every  street  corner?  These,  I  consider,  are  more  likely  to  affect 
the  morality  of  the  man  or  the  boy  in  the  street  (who,  by  the  way, 
would  not  read  Jurgen  for  money) ,  than  any  book  that  the  Com 
mittee  might  smell  out.  Why  don't  they  deal  with  the  headings 
of  the  newspapers  that  every  day  drag  down  standards  of  whole 
some  living  by  exhibiting — not  Cocaigne,  but  the  next  street — as 
a  place  of  crime  and  lust?  I  should  write  all  this  about  the  sup 
pression  of  a  mediocre  book.  But  Jurgen  is  not  a  mediocre  book. 
It  is  a  remarkable  book — imaginative,  vital  and  philosophic.  I 
might  add,  too,  that  it  is  an  austere  book.  What  Mr.  Whibley 
has  written  about  Congreve's  Way  of  the  World  applies  to  Jurgen — 
"as  austere  as  a  tragedy,  as  rarefied  as  thought  itself."  The  person 
who  could  be  misled  by  such  a  book  would  not  have  the  patience, 
the  discipline,  or  the  necessary  regard  for  literature  to  read  it. 
Such  books  are  not  for  policemen,  or  for  those  who,  dealing  with 
vice,  unfortunately  for  themselves,  have  to  lay  "the  dyer's  hand" 
upon  an  author's  book. 

Yours  sincerely, 

Padraic  Colum. 


115  Broadway 

i  gth  April 

I  signed  the  statement  and  protest  as  to  Jurgen  in  no  spirit 
of  solicitude  for  art  or  artists.  I  still  believe  that  petty  bureau 
cratic  interference  will  not  hinder  the  appointed  word  from  getting 
itself  spoken,  or  picture  from  getting  itself  painted.  My  attention 
went  outside  of  artists,  who,  to  my  view,  can  take  care  of  them 
selves,  to  the  mass  of  us,  artists  and  others,  who  make  up  the 
fumbling  giant  Democracy  and  who  are  depending  more  and  more 
upon  the  written  word  for  our  communications  with  our  fellows 
and  our  understanding  of  our  mass  job.  The  sight  of  the  way  our 
channels  of  written  communications  are  being  muddied  by  pro- 
hibitors  and  propagandists  makes  me  howl.  We  must  keep  them 
open  and  that  means  they  should  be  left  absolutely  alone.  No  man 
living  is  big  enough  to  interfere  with  these  channels — policemen, 
parsons,  or  pleaders  for  the  new  dispensation.  If  they  are  closed 
or  choked,  God  save  us! 

Faithfully  yours, 

Thos.  H.  Dickinson. 
50 


April  20,   igzo. 

I  am  of  course  delighted  to  do  anything  of  any  kind  in  protest 
against  the  censorship  of  Jurgen.  In  answer  to  your  question,  the 
lines  from  me  that  appeared  on  the  jacket  of  Jurgen  were,  I  think, 
part  of  a  letter  written  to  Guy  Holt  about  Cabell's  work.  Ask 
him  for  the  letter  and  say  that  I  will  be  delighted  to  have  you 
publish  it. 

As  to  adding  some  words,  I  can  only  say  in  the  first  place  that 
I  regard  any  censorship  of  art,  organized  and  directed  by  men  who 
are  moved  by  political  and  moral  feelings  apart  from  aesthetic 
ones,  as  an  impossible  anachronism  in  any  modern  civilized  country, 
and  that  in  any  case  I  cannot  see  that  Jurgen  can  possibly  be  held 
to  offend  against  morality  for  the  simple  reason  that  there  is  no 
incident,  detail  or  description  from  one  end  of  the  book  to  the  other 
that  is  not  there  entirely  for  reasons  of  truth  and  beauty.  The 
author's  implied  intention  behind  his  work  is  surely  the  thing  that 
matters  and  I  cannot  conceive  that  anyone  over  the  age  of  ten  or 
with  a  mentality  more  mature  than  that  could  dream  for  a  moment 
that  Cabell  is  anything  but  an  artist,  first,  second  and  last.  Finally, 
it  seems  to  me  quite  ludicrous  that  a  time  and  country  that  permit 
the  present  revues  and  musical  comedies  that  are  running  in  New 
York  and  Chicago,  that  publishes  in  every  daily  paper  those 
ludicrous  and  mushy  columns  about  love  and  matrimony,  can  see 
nothing  ironical  in  the  prohibition  of  one  of  the  few  first-class  works 
of  art  that  America  has  produced  in  recent  times.  Do  use  this 
entirely  honest  opinion  in  any  way  that  you  please. 

Yours  sincerely, 

Hugh  Walpole. 


THE  NATIONAL  ARTS  CLUB 

New  York. 

Gramercy  Park 

Manhattan 

Not  only  have  I  not  read  Jurgen,  but  this  is  the  first  time  I 
have  heard  of  the  Emergency  Committee.  I  have  been  away  from 
New  York  for  two  years,  and  would  like  to  be  better  informed. 

I  know  there  is  much  stupidity  enacted  in  the  name  of  morality, 
but  I  cannot  commit  myself  in  the  dark. 

Sincerely, 

Mary  Austin. 
51 


[The  following  note  was  received  a  few  days  later:] 

Count  me  as  opposed  to  the  methods  of  the  Society  for  the 
Suppression  of  Vice,  in  general.  But  do  not  commit  me  to  any 
particular  book  which  I  may  not  have  read. 

Sincerely, 

Mary  Austin. 


New  Hartford,  Conn. 

February  21,   1920. 

Many  thanks  for  your  letter  of  the  i3th  instant. 

Without  having  read  or  even  heard  of  James  Branch  Cabell's 
Jurgen,  it  is  impossible  for  me  to  sign  your  manifesto  without  some 
modification,  as  a  matter  of  simple  honesty  and  public  responsibility. 
Nor  do  I  know  anything  about  the  N.  Y.  Society  for  the  Suppression 
of  Vice,  as  I  no  longer  live  in  that  city,  and  do  not  find  time  to 
keep  in  close  touch  with  its  various  activities.  But  I  hate  the 
name  of  the  Society;  not  that  I  have  any  particular  interest  in  the 
promulgation  of  Vice;  but  because  I  know  very 'well  the  kind  of  a 
society  parading  under  that  name  that  is  likely  to  emerge  from 
the  moral  enthusiasms  of  a  place  like  New  York.  If  I  am  doing 
the  Society  an  injustice,  I  regret  it,  and  shall  be  glad  to  be  put 
right  in  the  matter,  and  if  necessary  make  public  apology  for  the 
same;  but  I  have  an  inspiration  that  the  Society  is  only  one  more 
of  the  many  diabolically  instigated  movements  now  afoot  to  cripple 
free  speech  and  to  torture  Art  and  the  divinely  inspired  liberties 
thereof  into  the  "safe,"  smug,  comfortable  bourgeois  pattern  of 
our  lords  and  masters,  the  propertied  and  financial  classes.  There 
fore,  until  further  illumination  comes  my  way,  and  with  the  modi 
fications  intimated  above,  I  do  most  solemnly  affix  my  signature 
also  to  your  manifesto.  I  too  belong  to  a  Society  for  the  Suppres 
sion  of  Vice,  one  inaugurated  by  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ;  and  the 
Vice  of  Plutocracy,  Oligarchy,  Bourgeois  Blasphemy  and  Intolerance 
is  one  of  them. 

Yours  very  sincerely, 

Charles  Rann  Kennedy. 

I  should  like  to  hear  the  names  of  the  people  who  are  running 
this  Society.  I  dare  swear  I  shall  find  them  all  "saved"  and  very 
rich. 


52 


The  University  of  Chicago 
The  Faculties  of  Arts,  Literature,  and  Science 

Office  of  the  Dean  of  the  Junior  Colleges. 

I  haven't  read  Jurgen  and  probably  shan't  read  it,  as  Cabell 
bores  me  to  tears.  As  for  the  law,  I  haven't  read  that  either,  and 
am  not  therefore  qualified  to  protest  against  it.  I  object  on  prin 
ciple  to  the  suppression  of  free  speech,  but  I  prefer  to  center  my 
energies  on  the  protection  of  people  who  can't  help  themselves, 
rather  than  crusade  for  prosperous  and  affected  pseudo-litterateurs 
like  Mr.  Cabell. 

Yours  sincerely, 

J.  W.  Linn. 
February  28,  1920. 


The  University  of  Chicago 
The  Faculties  of  Arts,  Literature,  and  Science 

Office  of  the  Deans  of  the  Colleges. 

Having  discussed  the  matter  with  Boynton,  after  the  receipt 
of  your  extremely  good-tempered  letter  of  March  2nd,  I  am  pre 
pared  to  say  I  was  wrong,  not  about  Cabell,  but  about  signing  the 
general  protest.  I  cannot  imagine  my  name  will  be  of  any  service; 
but  by  way  of  crying  peccavi,  I  shall  authorize  you  not  only  to 
use  it,  but  to  call  on  me  for  any  service  I  can  render. 

Yours  sincerely, 

J.  W.  Linn. 
March  23,  1920. 


H.  L.  Mencken 

1524  Hollins  Street 

Baltimore 


The  raid  on  Jurgen  is  the  crowning  absurdity.  The  book  is 
not  only  a  sound  and  honest  piece  of  work;  it  is  also  an  unques 
tionable  work  of  art;  and  perhaps  the  finest  thing  of  its  sort  ever 
done  in  America.  In  any  civilized  country  such  a  book  would  be 
received  with  enthusiasm  by  every  educated  man;  here  it  is  exposed 
forthwith  to  the  stupid  attack  of  persons  without  either  intelligence 
or  taste. 

The  laws  under  which  such  outrageous  assaults  upon  decent 
books  and  decent  authors  are  made  were  drawn  up  by  the  late 
Comstock  to  suit  his  private  convenience,  and  are  so  worded  that 

53 


it  is  practically  impossible  for  an  accused  publisher  to  make  an 
effective  defense.  They  are  unjust,  oblique  and  dishonest.  I  be 
lieve  that  no  movement  against  Comstockery  can  have  any  force 
until  these  laws  are  materially  amended.  It" will  take  a  hard  fight 
to  amend  them,  but  it  can  be  done.  Certainly  no  Legislature, 
once  it  is  made  aware  of  the  disgusting  facts,  will  ever  ratify  the 
proceedings  that  now  go  on  under  them . 

I  f  you  undertake  this  agitation  you  must  expect  to  be  attacked 
viciously.  Comstockery  is  a  profitable  business,  and  those  who 
live  by  it  are  without  decency.  But  you  will  be  doing  a  valuable 
work  for  American  letters.  Call  on  me  for  any  help  that  I  can  give. 

Sincerely  yours, 

H.  L.  Mencken. 


9  Arcade  House 
Temple  Fortune,  Hendon, 
London,  N.  W.  4 


Yes,  indeed,  you  may  add  my  name  to  the  list  of  protesters 
against  the  banning  of  Jurgen.  I  consider  myself  to  be  a  very 
ordinary  sort  of  person,  with  a  mind  as  shockable  as  that  of  either 
of  the  Rockefellers,  Senior  or  Junior  (particularly  Junior),  but  I 
could  not  find  anything  in  Jurgen  that  seemed  to  me  likely  to  destroy 
or  even  to  disturb  the  morals  of  a  Strict  and  Particular  Baptist. 
The  kind  of  person  who  might  be  harmed  by  it — if  there  be  such  a 
person — would  not  get  beyond  the  first  chapter  of  the  book,  which 
is  written  for  cultured  people  and  not  for  the  rag-tag  and  bobtail; 
and  in  any  event,  the  kind  of  person  who  can  be  harmed  by  such  a 
book  ought  to  be  harmed  and,  if  possible,  destroyed.  There  are 
two  kinds  of  war:  the  war  waged  by  evil  men  on  the  body,  and  the 
war  waged  by  more  evil  men  on  the  mind.  The  evil  men  have 
had  five  years  in  which  to  destroy  the  body  of  Youth:  the  more 
evil  men,  made  envious  no  doubt  by  the  spectacle  of  their  colleagues' 
success,  are  beginning  a  five  years  war  on  the  mind.  And  wherever 
one  looks  in  the  world  to-day,  one  sees  attempts  being  made  to 
control  opinion  and  to  suppress  thought.  We  must  fight  with 
our  backs  against  the  wall  in  defense  of  Free  Minds.  If  individ 
uality  is  to  be  crushed  out  of  civilization,  then  we  had  much  better 
die.  In  these  matters,  there  must  be  no  nationality — a  cursed 
thing  anyhow — but  a  kindly  comradeship.  In  the  fight  against 
the  Mind-Murderers,  Cabell  is  not  an  American,  I  am  not  an 
Irishman — we  are  simply  soldiers  of  freedom  fighting  in  a  renewal 
of  a  fight  that  must  be  continually  fought  if  men  are  to  remain  men 
and  not  degenerate  into  servile  things. 

Sincerely, 

St.  John  Ervine. 
54 


121  Ebury  Street 
London,  S.  W.  1 

22nd  April,  1920 

I  am  very  much  obliged  to  you  for  writing  about  your  struggle 
in  America  against  societies  who  disguise  themselves  as  Puritans 
so  that  they  may  blackmail  with  impunity.  .  .  I  have  not  read  it 
[Jurgen] ,  and  reading  it  would  not  enable  me  to  say  anything  that  I 
have  not  already  said  in  my  article  on  the  subject  printed  in  the 
Century  and  reprinted  in  my  last  volume  entitled  Avowals.  I  sup 
pose  you  will  have  read  my  article  in  the  Century,  and  if  you  have 
you  will  have  seen  that  the  leading  members  of  these  societies  are 
generally  libertines  of  the  worst  kind,  and  you  will  also  have  seen 
how  a  case  can  always  be  won  against  these  societies  if  it  is  fought 
wisely,  and  how  these  cases  should  be  fought.  I  have  signed  the 
paper  which  you  sent  me,  and  shall  always  be  glad  to  hear  from  you 
on  this  or  any  other  subject  in  which  you  are  interested.  You  say 
you  are  sending  me  under  separate  cover  a  pamphlet  published  by 
the  society  entitled:  Morals,  not  Art  or  Literature ,  but  the  pamphlet 
has  not  arrived;  I  am  sorry,  for  no  doubt  I  should  have  found  some 
thing  interesting  in  it. 

Truly  yours, 

George  Moore. 


121  Ebury  Street 
London,  S.  W.  1 


27 th  May,  1920. 


I  received  your  letter  dated  the  seventh  of  May  a  few  days 
ago  (the  postal  service  appears  to  get  worse) .  The  state  of  things 
that  you  describe  seems  to  me  to  call  for  radical  measures.  Liter 
ature  cannot  be  allowed  to  provide  a  quarry  for  the  indecent-minded 
and  the  blackmailer,  one  following  money  and  the  other  perverted 
sexual  excitement.  Something  will  have  to  be  done,  and  the  sooner 
public  attention  is  called  to  the  scandal  the  better.  The  way  to  do 
this  would  be  to  summon  the  publisher  of  Shakespeare  and  the 
Bible,  and  to  ask  publicly  in  court  why  these  books  should  be  exempt; 
if  they  contain  matter  injurious  to  the  public  health  they  must  be 
stopped,  and  it's  no  excuse  to  plead  that  they  are  well  written, 
life  being  more  important  than  literature.  I  think  of  no  other 
way  except  this  that  will  bring  about  a  change  in  the  law. 

Truly  yours, 
George  Moore. 


55 


LETTERS   TO  THE  PUBLISHER 

The  following  letters,  addressed  to  the  publisher  of  "Jurgen,"  are  here 
reprinted  with  the  kind  permission  of  the  writers  and  of  the  publisher : 

15  West  67th  Street 

February  17,   1920 

We  want  to  congratulate  you  for  publishing  that  remarkable 
book,  Jurgen,  of  James  Branch  Cabell,  and  add  our  opinion,  for 
whatever  it  may  be  worth,  to  the  opinion  of  those  who  admire  it 
and  are  protesting  against  the  Censor's  attack  upon  it. 

Such  an  attack  is  based,  we  suppose,  on  the  law  which  pre 
scribes  that:  "The  test  of  obscenity  within  the  meaning  of  the  statute 
is  whether  the  tendency  of  the  matter  charged  as  obscene  is  to 
deprave  or  corrupt  the  morals  of  those  whose  minds  are  open  to 
such  immoral  influences  and  into  whose  hands  a  publication  of  this 
sort  may  fall." 

According  to  this  law,  the  factors  which  determine  whether  a 
book  can  be  published  or  not  are  "the  minds  that  are  open,"  etc.,  a 
definition  which  includes  the  immature  and  degenerate  minds,  so 
that  the  culture  of  a  people  is  subordinated  to  the  requirements  of 
immature  and  degenerate  minds,  in  which  case  the  word  "culture" 
becomes  synonymous  with  immorality  and  must  cease  to  exist  with 
what  it  connotes. 

Strangely  enough,  the  type  of  mind  with  which  the  law  and  the 
Censor  are  in  such  close  sympathy  has  always  been  and  is  averse 
from  the  intellectual  effort  required  for  the  understanding  and 
appreciation  of  a  work  of  a  highly  intellectual  order,  so  that  it  is 
automatically  protected  from  what  might  affect  its  morbid  condition 
in  a  work  of  this  kind. 

It  is  strange,  therefore,  that  a  book  like  Jurgen  should  have 
been  read  at  all  by  the  agent  who  is  in  so  close  a  sympathy  with 
immature  and  degenerate  minds — a  bool<  of  which  Hugh  Walpole, 
an  eminent  writer,  says:  "Jurgen  is  surely  a  book  that  should 
make  Americans  proud.  I  am  delighted  with  its  delicacy  and  good- 
temper  and  tenderness,  its  fancy  and  its  wit.  If  Americans  are 
looking  for  a  book  to  show  to  Europe,  here  it  is." 

But,  then,  while  there  are  American  artists  and  Americans  who 
appreciate  art,  their  number  is  far  from  sufficient  to  offset  the  mass 
of  those  who,  while  advertising  so  loudly  the  "idealism"  of  America, 
are  really  so  devoid  of  it  as  to  stifle  or  drive  out  of  their  country 
those  who  could  best  inspire  it. 

This  cannot  be  called  an  exaggerated  statement,  as  they  have 
so  driven  out  already  such  men  as  Stephen  Crane,  Harris  Merton 
Lyon,  John  Curnos,  Henry  James,  Whistler,  John  Sargent,  Shannon 
and  many  others.  Can  we  wonder  about  it  when  the  expression  of 
the  artist  is  subjected  to  the  standard  that  fits  immature  and 
degenerate  minds? 

57 


Strangest  of  all,  however,  is  the  erratic  action  of  the  Censor 
who  vents  his  thunder  against  Jurgen,  a  phantasy  made  of  poetry, 
philosophy  and  the  sanest  and  most  varied  humor,  which  at  its 
broadest  never  seeks  to  make  sensuality  attractive  but  ridiculous, 
a  book  which  rises  to  the  height  of  permanent  achievement  above 
the  stream  of  mediocre  literature  flooding  our  times.  This  book  the 
Censor  wishes  to  suppress  when  he  has  allowed  a  book  as  repulsively 
obscene  as  Freud's  Leonardo  da  Vinci  to  circulate  freely  for  some 
years  past,  to  "fall  into  the  hands  of  those  whose  minds  are  open  to 
such  influences." 

It  seems  a  pity  that  if  literary  ignorance,  lack  of  culture  and 
lack  of  information  are  to  be  the  standards  required  for  the  control 
over  literature  in  this  country,  there  should  not  be  at  least  some 
sort  of  limitation  to  their  powers  of  destruction. 

Very  truly  yours, 

Amelie  Rives  Troubetzkoy, 
Pierre  Troubetzkoy. 


PENNSYLVANIA    STATE  BOARD   OF  CENSORS   OF  MOTION 

PICTURES 

Projection  Rooms 

1025  Cherry  Street 

Philadelphia 

March  i,   1920. 

In  Jurgen  Mr.  Cabell's  symbolism  is  at  times  phallic,  but  his 
narrative  is  so  far  above  the  understanding  of  any  but  the  highly 
sophisticated  that  in  my  opinion  no  conceivable  injury  could  result 
from  its  public  circulation.  It  is  safe  to  say  that  not  another 
person  in  our  English  speaking  and  English  writing  world  could 
think  in  such  terms  and  set  down  so  altogether  a  remarkable  piece 
of  literature.  In  this  book  he  ranges  the  whole  firmament  of  myth 
ology  and  romance.  To  nine  out  of  ten  persons  it  is  and  will  re 
main  as  incomprehensible  as  Greek.  It  is  for  the  enjoyment  of 
rare  souls  whose  reading  has  been  wide  and  whose  tastes  are  unusual, 
caviar  to  be  attacked  lightly  and  joyously  by  the  epicure.  No  one 
else  would  seem  to  have  any  business  with  such  a  book. 

Cabell's  women  are  intangible  creatures  so  far  removed  from 
daily  human  form  that  they  cannot  be  made  to  fall  under  the  rules 
established  for  the  world  that  we  know  about.  It  is  difficult  then 
to  know  on  what  grounds  he  should  be  condemned  for  impropriety. 

Sincerely  yours, 

Ellis  P.  Oberholtzer. 
58 


18  Upper  Fitzwilliam  Street, 
Dublin 

loth  February,   1920. 

Your  letter  of  the  i6th  January,  announcing  Jurgen  as  the 
latest  victim  of  Comstockery,  amazed  me.  I  have  been  through  the 
book  again  in  search  of  passages  likely  to  offend  even  the  most 
prurient  puritan,  for  on  first  reading  nothing  of  the  kind  had 
struck  me.  All  I  can  say  is  that  only  the  logic  which  would 
bowdlerize  the  Bible  or  classical  mythology  could  take  offense  at 
Jurgen.  It  is  a  delightful  fantasia,  a  charmingly  sophisticated 
fairy  tale,  but  a  fairy  tale  nevertheless.  To  inject  into  that  world 
of  myth,  where  Mr.  Cabell's  fancy  plays  so  skillfully,  the  crude 
solemnities  of  Methodist  morality  is  the  supreme  act  of  philistinism. 
I  hope  that  you  will  be  properly  supported  in  an  attempt  to  vin 
dicate  the  rights  of  literature,  for  never  was  there  a  clearer  case  of 
the  issue  which  must  be  faced,  if  art  in  America  is  ever  to  escape  the 
tutelage  of  the  aesthetically  blind.  Jurgen  is  not  even  a  Dreiserian 
chaos  of  contemporary  realism,  where  the  pious  stenographer  might 
find  some  incitement  to  a  life  of  pleasure.  Its  action  lies  outside  of 
time  and  space,  far  beyond  good  and  evil;  obviously  so  must  the 
morality  (if  any)  which  is  read  into  it.  It  seems  to  me  as  ludicrous 
to  criticise  Jurgen  s  actions  as  to  blush  at  the  perversities  of  Leda, 
or  to  ostracize  Pasiphae  on  the  grounds  of  immorality.  Except 
that  the  good  pawnbroker  did  not  observe  the  continence  alleged 
to  be  the  ideal  of  all  true  Presbyterians,  there  is  nothing  to  be  said 
against  him  which  would  not  apply  to  every  personage  in  the 
legendary  lore  of  most  civilized  countries.  There  is  no  scene  which 
could  be  described,  in  my  opinion,  as  deliberately  voluptuous,  or 
specifically  obscene.  These  are  the  counts,  I  understand,  on  which 
certain  masterpieces  have  from  time  to  time  been  indicted. 

With  every  good  wish  for  your  success  in  the  fight  which  I 
hope  you  will  make  on  behalf  of  Mr.  Cabell  in  particular  and  the 
liberty  of  the  artist  in  general, 

I  remain, 

Yours  sincerely, 

Ernest  A.  Boyd. 


New  York,  28  January,   1920. 

I  hear  Jurgen  is  suppressed,  but  I  hope  you  are  going  to  fight 
it  tooth  and  nail  because  it  is  really  time  to  clear  up  the  muddle 
between  literature  and  pornography;  and  the  juxtaposition  of 
Madeleine  and  Jurgen  is  an  admirable  instance.  There  are  things 
that  the  hand  of  vulgarity  must  not  touch,  but  there  is  nothing  in 
human  nature  that  literature  cannot  sanctify;  there's  the  difference. 

Yours  very  sincerely, 

Gilbert  Cannan. 
59 


ECHOES  FROM  THE  PRESS 

THE   FOLLOWING    ARTICLES   APPEARED  IN    THE   NEW   YORK 

NEWSPAPERS  DURING  THE  EARLY  PART  OF  THE  YEAR. 

THEY   ARE   REPRINTED    VERBATIM. 


THE  JUDGING   OF   JURGEN 

Great  Tumblebug  States  His  Case  for  the  Court  of  Philistia 

James  Branch  Cabell 
[From  the  New  York  Tribune,  Feb.  8,  1920] 

They  of  Poictesme  narrate  that  in  the  old  days  a  court  was  held  by  the 
Philistines  to  decide  whether  or  no  King  Jurgen  should  be  relegated  to  limbo. 
And  when  the  judges  were  prepared  for  judging,  there  came  into  the  court  a  great 
tumblebug,  rolling  in  front  of  him  his  loved  and  properly  housed  young  ones. 

This  insect  looked  at  Jurgen,  and  its  pincers  rose  erect  in  horror.  And  the  bug 
cried  to  the  three  judges,  "Now  by  St.  Anthony!  this  Jurgen  must  forthwith  be 
relegated  to  limbo,  for  he  is  offensive  and  lewd  and  lascivious  and  indecent." 

"And  how  can  that  be?"  says  Jurgen. 

"You  are  offensive,"  the  bug  replied,  "because  you  carry  a  sword,  which  I 
choose  to  say  is  not  a  sword.  You  are  lewd,  because  you  carry  a  staff,  which  I 
prefer  to  think  is  not  a  staff.  You  are  lascivious,  because  you  carry  a  lance, 
which  I  elect  to  declare  is  not  a  lance.  And,  finally,  you  are  indecent,  for  reasons 
of  which  a  description  would  be  objectionable  to  me,  and  which,  therefore,  I 
must  decline  to  reveal  to  anybody." 

"Well,  that  sounds  logical,"  says  Jurgen;  "but,  still,  at  the  same  time,  it 
would  be  no  worse  for  an  admixture  of  common  sense.  For  you,  gentlemen,  can 
see  for  yourselves  that  I  have  here  a  sword  and  a  lance  and  a  staff,  and  no  mention 
of  anything  else;  and  that  all  the  lewdness  is  in  the  insectival  mind  of  him  who 
itches  to  be  calling  these  things  by  other  names." 

The  judges  said  nothing  as  yet.  But  they  had  guarded  Jurgen,  and  all  the 
other  Philistines  stood  to  this  side  and  to  that  side  with  their  eyes  shut  tight 
and  saying  in  unison,  "We  decline  to  look,  because  to  look  might  seem  to  imply  a 
doubt  of  what  the  tumblebug  has  said.  Besides,  so  long  as  the  tumblebug  has 
reasons  which  he  declines  to  reveal,  his  reasons  stay  unanswerable,  and  you  are 
plainly  a  prurient  rascal,  who  are  making  trouble  for  yourself." 

"To  the  contrary,"  says  Jurgen,  "I  am  a  poet  and  I  make  literature." 

"But  in  Philistia  to  make  literature  and  to  make  trouble  for  yourself  are 
synonyms,"  the  tumblebug  explained.  "I  know,  for  already  we  of  Philistia 
have  been  pestered  by  three  of  these  makers  of  literature.  Yes,  there  was  Edgar, 
whom  I  starved  and  hunted  until  I  was  tired  of  it;  then  I  chased  him  up  a  back 
alley  one  night  and  knocked  out  those  annoying  brains  of  his.  And  there  was 
Walt,  whom  I  chivvied  and  battered  from  place  to  place  and  made  a  paralytic 
of  him;  and  him,  too,  I  labeled  offensive  and  lewd  and  lascivious  and  indecent. 
Then  later,  there  was  Mark,  whom  I  frightened  into  disguising  himself  in  a  clown's 
suit,  so  that  nobody  might  suspect  him  of  being  one  of  those  vile  makers  of  litera 
ture;  indeed,  I  frightened  him  so  that  he  hid  away  the  greater  part  of  what  he  had 
made  until  he  was  dead  and  I  could  not  get  at  him.  That  was  a  disgusting  trick 
to  play  on  me,  I  consider.  Still,  these  are  the  only  three  detected  makers  of 

63 


literature  that  have  ever  infested  Philistia,  thanks  be  to  goodness  and  my  vigi 
lance,  but  for  both  of  which  we  might  have  been  no  more  free  from  makers  of 
literature  than  are  the  other  countries." 

"Now,  but  these  three,"  cried  Jurgen,  "are  the  glory  of  Philistia;  and  of  all 
that  Philistia  has  produced,  it  is  these  three  alone,  whom  living  ye  made  least 
of,  that  to-day  are  honored  wherever  art  is  honored,  and  where  nobody  bothers 
one  way  or  the  other  about  Philistia!" 

"What  is  art  to  me  and  my  way  of  living?"  replied  the  tumblebug,  wearily. 
"I  have  no  concern  with  art  and  letters  and  the  other  lewd  idols  of  foreign  nations. 
I  have  in  charge  the  moral  welfare  of  my  young,  whom  I  roll  here  before  me,  and 
trust,  with  St.  Anthony's  aid,  to  raise  in  time  to  be  God-fearing  tumblebugs  like 
me.  For  the  rest,  I  have  never  minded  dead  men  being  well  spoken  of;  no,  no, 
my  lad,  once  whatever  I  may  do  means  nothing  to  you,  and  once  you  are  really 
rotten  you  will  find  the  tumblebug  friendly  enough.  Meanwhile,  I  am  paid  to 
protest  that  living  persons  are  offensive  and  lewd  and  lascivious  and  indecent, 
and  one  must  live." 

Jurgen  now  looked  more  attentively  at  this  queer  creature;  and  he  saw  that 
the  tumblebug  was  malodorous  certainly,  but  at  bottom  honest  and  well  meaning; 
and  that  seemed  to  Jurgen  the  saddest  thing  he  had  found  among  the  Philistines. 
For  the  tumblebug  was  sincere  in  his  insane  doings  and  all  Philistia  honored  him 
sincerely,  so  that  there  was  nowhere  any  hope  for  this  people. 

Therefore,  King  Jurgen  addressed  himself  to  submit,  as  his  need  was,  to  the 
strange  customs  of  the  Philistines.  "Now  do  you  judge  me  fairly,"  cried  Jurgen 
to  his  judges,  "if  there  be  any  justice  in  this  insane  country.  And  if  there  be 
none,  do  you  relegate  me  to  limbo,  or  to  any  other  place,  so  long  as  in  that  place 
this  tumblebug  is  not  omnipotent  and  sincere  and  insane." 

And  Jurgen  waited 


"THE  RAINBOW"  AND  "JURGEN" 

Cannan  Says  Posterity  May  Take  Books  Now  Banned 
By  Gilbert  Cannan 

Tis  the  voice  of  the  sluggard 

I  heard  him  complain, 
"You  have  waked  me  too  soon, 

You  must  call  me  again." 

(From  the  New  York  Tribune,  Feb.  8,  1920) 

The  familiar  jingle  is  the  best  possible  diagnosis  of  the  trouble  in  which 
those  singular  beings,  D.  H.  Lawrence  and  James  Branch  Cabell,  find  themselves. 
Humanity's  chief  trouble  is  inertia,  and  those  inconvenient  persons  who  attempt 
to  break  it  are  frequently  themselves  broken.  However,  let  us,  above  all,  be 
good-tempered  about  it.  If  posterity  wants  Jurgen  and  The  Rainbow,  posterity 
will  print  them.  The  present  generation  does  not  want  them  because  they  are 
in  advance  of  current  morality,  and  those  whose  idiosyncrasy  it  is  to  care  for 
morals,  to  the  exclusion  of  good  sense  and  every  other  social  consideration,  de 
mand  their  suppression. 

64 


In  these  matters  there  is  no  better  text  than  that  supplied  by  William  Shake 
speare  in  the  line: 

"Love  is  all  truth;  lust  is  all  forged  lies." 

It  may  or  it  may  not  be  a  good  thing  to  suppress  vice.  Personally  as  a 
libertarian,  I  incline  to  the  view  that  every  attempt  to  suppress  only  increases 
its  frenzy,  for,  as  they  say,  murder  will  out;  but  it  is  important  that  those  who 
believe  in  attempting  to  suppress  vice  should  learn  to  distinguish  it  from  truth, 
otherwise  they  are  apt  to  tamper  not  with  the  debauches  of  the  human  mind,  but 
with  its  means  of  expression,  than  which  it  has  no  other  means  of  development. 
Humanity  wants  to  know  the  facts  about  itself  and  the  need  increases  with  its 
knowledge  about  the  facts  of  everything  else.  Every  new  invention,  every  great 
social  development  imposes  upon  the  writing  artist  a  higher  standard  of  integrity 
and  urges  him  away  from  the  charm  and  toward  the  necessity  of  his  work.  A 
modern  novelist,  living  in  a  time  of  great  stress  and  profound  change,  can  no 
longer  accept  the  convention  which  deprived  the  characters  in  a  work  of  fiction 
of  both  passion  and  intelligence  in  order  that  novels  might  be  read  as  easily  and 
indolently  as  the  newspapers,  until  at  last  novels  came  to  be  written  as  easily 
and  indolently  as  they  were  read.  Compared  with  such  novels  books  like  JUT  gen 
and  The  Rainbow  seem  to  be  startling  and  violent .  The  men  who  wrote  them  have 
actually  had  the  audacity  to  ignore  the  lassitude  of  the  modern  reader.  They 
have  discarded  the  superficial  view  of  human  relationships  and  have  had  the 
temerity  to  explore  them.  Lawrence  insists  upon  their  intensity,  Cabell  upon 
their  transience ;  but  both  are  good  artists  and  are  reverent  before  the  wonder 
and  mystery  of  their  material.  Unfortunately,  the  indolent  modern  mind,  in 
the  sluggishness  of  its  decadent  Puritanism,  sees  none  of  the  reverence  and  is 
aware  only  of  what  seems  to  it  the  painful  emphasis  on  these  things,  passion  and 
intelligence,  which  it  has  for  so  long  ignored.  It  is  thrown  into  panic  and  imagines 
that  here  is  an  attack  upon  society.  But  artists  do  not  attack  society;  they  leave 
that  to  the  prophets  and  social  reformers.  The  artist's  loyalty  is  to  art  and  that 
loyalty  is  a  thing  that  the  layman  cannot  possibly  understand.  The  layman, 
therefore,  should  leave  well  alone  and  not  attempt  the  impossible.  There  is  no 
earthly  reason  why  he  should  read  a  book  that  offends  him,  but  there  is  every 
reason  why  he  should  not  attempt  to  prevent  others  reading  it  who  wish  to  do  so, 
for  the  social  implication  is  profound  and  serious.  Every  clamor  over  the  alleged 
indecency  of  a  work  of  art  rouses  in  the  innumerable  indolent  readers  of  the  news 
papers  the  always  present  hunger  for  prurience  which  there  are,  in  all  conscience, 
books  enough  to  satisfy.  A  work  of  art — like  Jurgen  or  The  Rainbow— is  pro 
tected — if  there  were  none  of  this  unreasoning  and  well-intentioned  interference — 
by  the  fact  that  it  is  a  work  of  art  and  outside  the  range  of  the  indolent  reader. 
When  there  is  interference  a  work  of  art  is  exposed  to  the  insult  of  being  read  for 
what  it  does  not  contain — witless  salacity. 

In  salacity  salted  with  wit  there  is  no  harm  whatsoever — for  persons  of 
experience.  "Ah!"  say  the  well-meaning  and  censorious,  "but  we  must  protect 
the  innocent."  In  reply,  I  would  say  that  the  innocent  are  of  all  classes  of 
persons  the  least  in  need  of  protection,  for  their  innocence  has  no  clue  to  the 
meaning  of  human  expression.  All  books  to  them  are  fairy  tales,  as  witness 

65 


Gulliver's  Travels.  None  who  has  lost  his  innocence  must  work  cunning  upon 
them  .  .  .  good  Lord!  I  remember  when  I  was  fourteen,  as  my  father  and 
older  brother  came  home  from  the  theatre  singing  a  plaintive  ditty  with  the 
refrain  "I  have  fallen  through  another,"  asking  naively,  "Through  another 
what  ?"  and  I  had  grotesque  and  puzzled  visions  of  a  young  woman  falling  through 
a  ceiling  or  coal  hole  or  down  a  drain,  and  even  when  my  brother  explained  at 
some  length  the  words  had  no  real  and  certainly  no  exciting  meaning.  And  all 
innocent  persons  are  like  that — they  have  no  conception  of  anything  outside  their 
range. 

It  may  be  said,  on  the  other  hand,  that  young  minds  groping  out  of  inno 
cence  must  be  protected.  I  never  knew  a  young  mind  that  sought  out  a  dirty 
book  without  external  suggestion,  and  that  external  suggestion  is  invariably 
supplied  with  the  maximum  of  force  whenever  a  public  outcry  is  raised  against 
the  work  of  an  artist  who  in  his  exploration  of  the  mystery  of  human  relation 
ships  states  candidly  and  beautifully,  passionately  or  wittily,  what  he  finds  there. 
There  is  absolutely  no  other  result  except  that  timorous  artists  may  be  deterred 
from  honesty,  but  if  they  are  so  timid  as  all  that  there  is  no  great  loss. 

The  case  of  The  Rainbow  is  of  the  two  the  more  amusing,  because  if  ever  there 
was  a  morose,  hard-boiled  Cromwellian  Puritan  it  is  D.  H.  Lawrence,  and  for 
the  Puritans  to  assail  him  is  for  them  to  show  how  little  grasp  they  have  of  the 
logic  of  their  own  case.  In  Jurgen,  on  the  other  hand,  the  Puritan  may  find  his 
natural  enemy,  the  aristocratic  individual  who  does  "not  give  a  single  damn," 
and  then  the  Puritan  is  baffled,  for  no  attack  can  impinge  upon  that  individual's 
imperturbability. 

The  matter  is  serious  and  worth  writing  about  at  length,  because  modern 
society  is  hectic  and  confused  for  lack  of  the  authority  which  only  art  can  give  it . 
Indeed,  these  periodic  assaults  upon  books  which  are  a  few  years  ahead  of  their 
time  are  perverted  expressions  of  the  need  of  that  authority  which  is  withheld  by, 
among  other  things,  this  pathetic  confusion  of  pornography  and  literature. 
There  should  be  a  rallying  of  writers  everywhere  to  make  it  plain  to  the  public 
that  literature  cannot  possibly  be  pornographic,  and  that  there  is  no  simple  fact 
of  human  nature  that  cannot  find  expression  in  art.  A  dirty  book  is,  God  save 
us!  a  thing  of  nought.  It  must  perish  of  its  own  dreariness.  A  work  of  art  is  a 
thing  of  vital  necessity  and  society  tampers  with  it  at  its  peril. 


IS  ANY  BOOK  SAFE? 

(From  the  Editorial  Page  of  the  New  York  Times,  March  28,  1920) 

The  New  York  police  do  not  intend  to  let  the  Society  for  the  Suppression 
of  Vice  get  all  the  credit  for  censoring  American  literature.  Mr.  Sumner  of  the 
Vice  Society  lately  prosecuted  with  success  the  head  of  one  of  the  best  known  of 
American  publishing  houses  for  the  issuance  of  a  book  which  was  accepted  and 
published  without  the  knowledge  of  the  defendant,  a  book  most  of  whose  readers 
must  have  been  surprised  to  learn  that  a  court  had  regarded  it  as  under  the  ban 
of  the  law.  This  encouraged  Mr.  Sumner;  he  brought  proceedings  against  the 
publishers  of  a  book  which  is  regarded  by  a  great  many  lovers  of  literature  as  one 

66 


of  the  most  notable  American  works  of  recent  years.  This  case  has  not  yet  come 
to  trial;  but  the  jealousy  of  the  police  seems  to  have  been  excited.  Was  it  to  be 
said  that  anybody  had  a  more  sensitive  nose  than  the  police  vice  squad? 

It  was  not  to  be  said  very  long.  Another  book,  issued  by  a  firm  which  has  given 
many  valuable  books  to  the  public,  was  found  obnoxious  to  the  moral  sense  of  a 
detective,  and  the  publishers  must  appear  in  court  tomorrow.  Persons  who 
occasionally  like  to  read  books  may  be  interested  in  the  section  of  the  penal  law 
which  says  that 

"A  Magistrate  *  *  *  upon  complaint  that  any  person  within  his 
jurisdiction  is  offending  against  the  provisions  of  this  article,  supported 
by  oath  or  affirmation,  must  issue  a  warrant." 

And  this  warrant,  to  condense  the  legal  phraseology,  directs  police  officers  to 
seize  all  copies  of  the  book,  or  picture,  or  whatever  may  be  regarded  as  obscene 
by  the  man  who  made  the  complaint,  and  deliver  them  to  the  District  Attorney 
to  be  held  until  trial.  If  the  purveyor  of  the  books  or  pictures  is  convicted,  the 
offensive  articles  are  destroyed,  unless  retained  for  the  sake  of  evidence  by  the 
Society  for  the  Suppression  of  Vice;  if  the  seller  is  acquitted,  his  property  is,  of 
course,  restored. 

Upon  complaint  the  Magistrate  must  issue  a  warrant — this  means  that  if  any 
individual  sees,  or  professes  to  see,  indecency  in  any  book,  the  sale  of  that  book 
is  stopped  until  the  seller  has  been  tried.  If  any  Magistrate  and  three  Judges 
of  Special  Sessions  agree  with  the  man  who  makes  the  complaint,  the  book  is 
suppressed  for  good.  Fortunately  the  courts  have  generally  been  far  more 
reasonable  than  the  statute,  which  despite  intelligent  Judges  goes  a  long  way  to 
restricting  the  reading  of  the  public  to  such  books  as  do  not  seem  objectionable 
to  any  man  who  makes  a  living  by  looking  for  unlawful  publications.  The 
public  morals  must  be  preserved,  but  surely  there  is  some  wiser  way  of  preserving 
them  than  this. 


LIFT  LITERARY  LOAD  OFF  POLICE 

Authors  and  Publishers  Plan  Censor  Board  to  Pass  on  Books  and  Let  Coppers 
Have  More  Time  to  Hunt  Thieves 

(From  the  New  York  Evening  Sun,  March  8,  1920) 

If  certain  publishers  and  authors  have  their  way  the  New  York  Police  De 
partment  will  be  a  much  more  attractive  place  of  employment  than  heretofore. 
No  member  of  the  department,  not  even  members  of  the  vice  squad,  will  be 
required  to  read  a  questionable  book  in  pursuit  of  duty. 

Instead  of  calling  for  volunteer  book  readers  who  will  undertake  to  ferret 
out  the  evil  in  a  volume,  even  at  the  risk  of  their  own  morals,  the  head  of  the  vice 
squad  may  be  able  merely  to  smile,  shrug  his  shoulders  and  send  the  book  on  to  a 
board  of  censors — unless,  of  course,  heroic  policemen  should  insist  on  reading  the 
book  after  hours  in  their  capacity  as  self-sacrificing  citizens. 

Boni  &  Liveright,  publishers  of  The  Story  of  a  Lover,  an  anonymously 
written  tale,  which  Patrolman  John  F.  Pooler  found  contained  words  whose 
employment  he  thought  were  prejudicial  to  the  interests  of  the  general  public, 
originated  the  board  of  censorship  idea.  The  board,  in  their  opinion,  should 

67 


include  representatives  of  various  organizations  of  culture  and  morals,  including 
the  clergy,  and  would  be  able  to  lift  from  the  police  their  literary  burdens.  But 
their  suggestion  is  not  the  only  one  advanced  for  the  solution  of  this  literary 
problem. 

Campaign  to  Change  Law 

A  committee  of  three  authors,  Barrett  H.  Clark,  writer  on  dramatic  sub 
jects;  E.  H.  Bierstadt,  author  of  the  Life  of  Dunsany,  and  Sidney  Howard, 
magazinist,  is  seriously  arranging  to  place  the  censorship  law  of  the  State  before 
the  general  public  with  a  view  to  having  the  law  amended.  The  committee  was 
organized  at  first  to  protest  against  the  New  York  Society  for  the  Suppression 
of  Vice  in  its  action  to  prohibit  the  publication  of  Cabell's  Jurgen.  Action 
against  the  publishers  of  this  book,  the  Robert  M.  McBride  Company,  was  begun 
by  the  society  in  January.  The  case  has  not  yet  been  decided. 

"We  have  come  to  the  conclusion  that  sporadic  efforts  for  the  righting 
of  individual  cases  and  against  particular  societies  are  not  enough,"  said  Mr. 
Clark,  secretary  of  the  committee.  "We  are  now  preparing  to  attract  public 
attention  to  the  need  for  an  amendment  to  the  law.  Any  work  under  the  sun 
could  be  censored  under  the  existing  law,  provided  any  one  cared  to  bring  it  to 
the  attention  of  the  authorities." 

It  was  called  to  Mr.  Clark's  attention  that  a  recent  reviewer  had  declared 
that  only  the  Rollo  Books  and  Esther  Reid,  Yet  Speaking  would  be  allowed  to 
circulate  freely  under  the  act,  but  he  expressed  a  decided  doubt  as  to  whether  even 
these  volumes  would  be  found  innocuous  if  thoroughly  raked  for  wrong  thoughts 
and  words  under  the  provision  of  the  statute. 

Writers'  Club  Assails  System 

The  Writers'  Club,  whose  president  is  Walter  Adolphe  Roberts,  a  magazine 
editor,  passed  a  resolution  at  its  last  meeting  denouncing  the  suppression  of 
Jurgen  and  the  censorship  of  books,  plays  and  works  of  art  as  conducted  by  the 
Society  for  the  Suppression  of  Vice.  "Vicious,  unintelligent  and  destructive  to 
American  liberty  and  honest  literary  craftsmanship,"  is  the  Writers'  Club  state 
ment  in  regard  to  the  censorship  of  the  vice  society. 

Other  books  which  have  been  brought  into  court  in  recent  years  either  by 
the  police  or  the  Society  for  the  Suppression  of  Vice  are  Theodore  Dreiser's 
The  Genius,  published  by  the  John  Lane  Company;  Madeleine,  published  by 
Harper  &z  Bros.,  and  Guido  Bruno's  Edna,  the  Girl  of  the  Street. 

Meanwhile  John  S.  Sumner,  executive  secretary  of  the  Society  for  the 
Suppression  of  Vice,  isn't  a  bit  disturbed  by  these  efforts  of  writers  and  publishers 
to  establish  a  different  system  of  literary  censorship. 

"A  Board  of  Censors  might  be  a  very  good  thing,"  said  Mr.  Sumner  placid 
ly,  "it  would  be  likely  to  restrain  some  of  the  rash  publishers.  Of  course  it  would 
only  be  advisory  and  could  have  no  binding  effect  on  the  police  or  courts." 


68 


APPENDICES 


APPENDIX  A 

The  Laws.     Penal  Code  of  the  State  of  New  York 

§1141.  I.  "A  person  who  sells,  lends,  gives  away  or  shows,  or  offers  to 
sell,  lend,  give  away,  or  show,  or  has  in  his  possession  with  intent  to  sell,  lend  or 
give  away,  or  to  show,  or  advertises  in  any  manner,  or  who  otherwise  offers  for 
loan,  gift,  sale  or  distribution,  any  obscene,  lewd,  lascivious,  filthy,  indecent  or 
disgusting  book,  magazine,  pamphlet,  newspaper,  story  paper,  writing,  paper, 
picture,  drawing,  photograph,  figure  or  image,  or  any  written  or  printed  matter 
of  an  indecent  character;  or  any  article  or  instrument  of  indecent  or  immoral  use, 
or  purporting  to  be  for  indecent  or  immoral  use  or  purpose,  or  who,  designs, 
copies,  draws,  photographs,  prints,  utters,  publishes,  or  in  any  manner  manu 
factures,  or  prepares  any  such  book,  picture,  drawing,  magazine,  pamphlet, 
newspaper,  story  paper,  writing,  paper,  figure,  image,  matter,  article  or  thing, 
or  who  writes,  prints,  publishes,  or  utters,  or  causes  to  be  written,  printed,  pub 
lished  or  uttered,  any  advertisement  or  notice  of  any  kind,  giving  information, 
directly  or  indirectly,  stating,  or  purporting  so  to  do,  where,  how,  of  whom,  or  by 
what  means  any,  or  what  purports  to  be  any,  obscene,  lewd,  lascivious,  filthy, 
disgusting  or  indecent  book,  picture,  writing,  paper,  figure,  image,  matter,  article 
or  thing,  named  in  this  section  can  be  purchased,  obtained  or  had;  or  who  has  in 
his  possession,  any  slot  machine  or  other  mechanical  contrivance  with  moving 
pictures  of  nude  or  partly  denuded  female  figures  which  pictures  are  lewd,  obscene, 
indecent  or  immoral,  or  other  lewd,  obscene,  indecent  or  immoral  drawing,  image, 
article  or  object,  or  who  shows,  advertises  or  exhibits  the  same,  or  causes  the  same 
to  be  shown,  advertised  or  exhibited,  or  who  buys,  owns  or  holds  any  such 
machine  with  the  intent  to  show,  advertise  or  in  any  manner  exhibit  the  same; 
or  who 

II.  "Prints,  utters,  publishes,  sells,  lends,  gives  away  or  shows,  or  has  in 
his  possession  with  intent  to  sell,  lend,  give  away  or  show,  or  otherwise  offers  for 
sale,  loan,  gift  or  distribution,  any  book,  pamphlet,  magazine,  newspaper  or  other 
printed  paper  devoted  to  the  publication,  and  principally  made  up  of  criminal 
news,  police  reports,  or  accounts  of  criminal  deeds,  or  pictures,  or    stories    of 
deeds  of  bloodshed,  lust  or  crime;  or  who 

III .  "In  any  manner,  hires,  employs,  uses  or  permits  any  minor  or  child  to 
do  or  assist  in  doing  any  act  or  thing  mentioned  in  this  section,  or  any  of  them,  is 
guilty  of  a  misdemeanor,  and,  upon  conviction,  shall  be  sentenced  to  not  less  than 
ten  days  nor  more  than  one  year  imprisonment,  or  be  fined  not  less  than  fifty 
dollars,  nor  more  than  one  thousand  dollars,  or  both,  fine  and  imprisonment  for 
each  offense." 

United  States  Criminal  Code 
Act  Mar.  4,  1909.    Sections  211,  212,  245.    Chapter  321,  35.    Stat.  L.  1129. 

§211 .  "Every  obscene,  lewd,  or  lascivious,  and  every  filthy  book,  pamphlet, 
picture,  paper,  letter,  writing,  print,  or  other  publication  of  an  indecent  char 
acter,  and  every  article  or  thing  designed,  adapted,  or  intended  for  preventing 
conception  or  producing  abortion,  or  for  any  indecent  or  immoral  use;  and  every 
article,  instrument,  substance,  drug,  medicine,  or  thing  which  is  advertised  or 
described  in  a  manner  calculated  to  lead  another  to  use  or  apply  it  for  preventing 
conception  or  producing  abortion,  or  for  any  indecent  or  immoral  purpose;  and 
every  written  or  printed  card,  letter,  circular,  book,  pamphlet,  advertisement,  or 
notice  of  any  kind  giving  information  directly  or  indirectly,  where,  or  how,  or 
from  whom,  or  by  what  means  any  of  the  hereinbefore  mentioned  matters,  articles, 
or  things  may  be  obtained  or  made,  or  where  or  by  whom  any  act  or  operation  of 
any  kind  for  the  procuring  or  producing  of  abortion  will  be  done  or  performed,  or 
how  or  by  what  means  conception  may  be  prevented  or  abortion  produced, 
whether  sealed  or  unsealed;  and  every  letter,  packet,  or  package,  or  other  mail 
matter  containing  any  filthy,  vile,  or  indecent  thing,  device,  or  substance;  and 

71 


every  paper,  writing,  advertisement,  or  representation  that  any  article,  instru 
ment,  substance,  drug,  medicine,  or  thing  may,  or  can  be  used  or  applied  for  pre 
venting  conception  or  producing  abortion,  or  for  any  indecent  or  immoral  purpose; 
and  every  description  calculated  to  induce  or  incite  a  person  to  so  use  or  apply 
any  such  article,  instrument,  substance,  drug,  medicine,  or  thing,  is  hereby  de 
clared  to  be  nonmailable  matter  and  shall  not  be  conveyed  in  the  mails  or  delivered 
from  any  post  office  or  by  any  letter  carrier.  Whoever  shall  knowingly  deposit, 
or  cause  to  be  deposited  for  mailing  or  delivery,  anything  declared  by  this  section 
to  be  nonmailable,  or  shall  knowingly  take,  or  cause  the  same  to  be  taken,  from 
the  mails  for  the  purpose  of  circulating  or  disposing  thereof,  or  of  aiding  in  the 
circulation  or  disposition  thereof,  shall  be  fined  not  more  than  five  thousand 
dollars,  or  imprisoned  not  more  than  five  years,  or  both. 

§212.  "All  matter  otherwise  mailable  by  law,  upon  the  envelope  or  outside 
cover  or  wrapper  of  which,  or  any  postal  card  upon  which,  any  delineations, 
epithets,  terms,  or  language  of  an  indecent,  lewd,  lascivious,  obscene,  libelous, 
scurrilous,  defamatory,  or  threatening  character,  or  calculated  by  the  terms  or 
manner  or  style  of  display  and  obviously  intended  to  reflect  injuriously  upon  the 
character  or  conduct  of  another,  may  be  written  or  printed  or  otherwise  impressed 
or  apparent,  are  hereby  declared  nonmailable  matter,  and  shall  not  be  conveyed 
in  the  mails  nor  delivered  from  any  post  office  nor  by  any  letter  carrier,  and  shall 
be  withdrawn  from  the  mails  under  such  regulations  as  the  Postmaster-General 
shall  prescribe.  Whoever  shall  knowingly  deposit  or  cause  to  be  deposited,  for 
mailing  or  delivery,  anything  declared  by  this  section  to  be  nonmailable  matter, 
or  shall,  knowingly,  take  the  same  or  cause  the  same  to  be  taken  from  the  mails 
for  the  purpose  of  circulating  or  disposing  of  or  aiding  in  the  circulation  or  dis 
position  of  the  same,  shall  be  fined  not  more  than  five  thousand  dollars,  or  im 
prisoned  not  more  than  five  years,  or  both. 

§245.  "Whoever  shall  bring  or  cause  to  be  brought  into  the  United  States 
or  any  place  subject  to  the  jurisdiction  thereof,  from  any  foreign  country,  or 
shall  therein  knowingly  deposit  or  cause  to  be  deposited  with  any  express  com 
pany  or  other  common  carrier,  for  carriage  from  one  State,  Territory  or  District 
of  the  United  States,  or  place  noncontiguous  to  but  subject  to  the  jurisdiction 
thereof,  or  from  any  place  in  or  subject  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the  United  States 
through  a  foreign  country  to  any  place  in  or  subject  to  the  jurisdiction  thereof,  or 
from  any  place  in  or  subject  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the  United  States  to  a  foreign 
country,  any  obscene,  lewd,  or  lascivious,  or  any  filthy,  book,  pamphlet,  picture, 
paper,  letter,  writing,  print,  or  other  matter  of  indecent  character,  or  any  drug, 
medicine,  article,  or  thing  designed,  adapted  or  intended  for  preventing  con 
ception,  or  for  producing  abortion,  or  for  any  indecent  or  immoral  use,  or  any 
written  or  printed  card,  letter,  circular,  book,  pamphlet,  advertisement,  or  notice 
of  any  kind  giving  information,  directly  or  indirectly,  where,  how,  or  of  whom,  or 
by  what  means  any  of  the  hereinbefore-mentioned  articles,  matters,  or  things 
may  be  obtained  or  made;  or  whoever  shall  knowingly  take  or  cause  to  be  taken 
from  such  express  company  or  other  common  carrier  any  matter  or  thing,  the 
depositing  of  which  for  carriage  is  herein  made  unlawful,  shall  be  fined  not  more 
than  five  thousand  dollars,  or  imprisoned  not  more  than  five  years,  or  both." 


72 


APPENDIX  B 

The  little  booklet  which  has  already  been  referred  to  offers  a  wealth  of  sug 
gestive  material  in  the  form  of  decisions  and  interpretations.  Some  of  these  are 
reprinted  below.  In  the  same  pamphlets  there  appears  a  page  presumably 
from  the  hand  of  Anthony  Comstock.  It  is  worth  pondering  over: 

MORALS 
It  is  a  Question  of  Peace,  Good  Order  and  Morals,  and  not  of  Art,  Literature  or  Science 

Art  for  art  purposes  in  an  art  gallery,  medical  works  for  medical  and  scientific 
men,  and  standard  literature  for  literary  persons  and  students,  does  not  mean 
that  the  nude  in  art, anatomical  plates  from  medical  works,  nor  bawdy  and  obscene 
extracts  from  standard  authors  have  the  right  to  be  placed  upon  indiscriminate 
exhibition  or  sale,  nor  placed  before  immature  minds,  when  such  exhibition,  sale 
or  indiscriminate  circulation  tends  to  endanger  the  morals  of  the  young. 

For  instance,  what  can  be  more  chaste,  innocent  or  freer  from  guile,  than  a 
young  girl  in  the  privacy  of  her  room.  She  may,  as  occasion  requires,  divest 
herself  of  all  apparel.  But  that  is  not  a  picture  for  a  "Peeping  Tom"  to 
desecrate  by  looking  through  a  keyhole,  or  under  a  window  shade  or  curtain. 

If  a  person  should  give  such  an  exhibition,  and  call  attention  of  young  men 
to  it,  there  would  be  an  outcry  of  indignation  at  once.  While  the  picture  might 
be  chaste,  innocent  and  beautiful  in  itself,  the  effect  would  certainly  be  de 
moralizing.  It  would  tend  to  corrupt  the  morals  of  young  men  and  boys,  in 
flame  their  passion,  and  cause  loose  thoughts.  Such  a  display  would  not  be 
tolerated  for  a  day. 

So  the  practice  of  photographing  the  nude  figures  from  beautiful  works  of 
art  for  mercenary  purposes,  and  placing  these  figures  upon  indiscriminate  sale, 
is  an  assault  upon  the  minds  and  morals  of  our  youth. 

It  practically  unclothes  the  sacred  form  of  woman,  exposing  her  to  public 
gaze.  It  is  invading  the  sacred  domain  of  woman,  and  degrades  woman  in  the 
common  mind.  It  is  supplanting  the  spirit  of  reverence  and  chivalry  for  woman 
with  loose  and  degrading  thoughts.  It  is  a  curse  to  young  men. 

These  pictures,  if  works  of  art,  are  privileged  to  occupy  the  select  place 
which  art  has  chosen  for  her  abode,  but  acquire  no  more  right  to  a  public  sale  or 
display,  than  a  chaste  young  girl  would  have  to  make  a  public  exhibition  of  her 
nude  form  from  shop  window  or  sidewalk. 

The  law  forbids  such  exhibitions  in  the  interests  of  public  morals. 


The  decisions  and  interpretations  follow: 

(1)     Regarding  the  United  States  Criminal  Code 

"The  guilty  intent  appears  from  the  fact  of  the  deposit  of  such  matter  by 
one  knowing  what  articles  he  deposits.  The  evidence  of  the  crime  is,  therefore, 
complete  when  the  act  and  the  knowledge  is  shown.  (U.  S.  vs.  Bott,  11  Blatch, 
c.c.,pp.  348-9.) 

Observation:  Since  it  is  impossible  to  determine,  in  the  case  of  books,  what 
is  or  is  not  "obscene,"  etc.,  the  "knowledge"  referred  to  must  be  proved  ex,  post 
facto.  Not  until  the  defendant  is  tried  is  the  book  adjudged  indecent  or  not. 

73 


(2)     Regarding  the  New  York  State  Penal  Code 

"It  would,  we  conceive,  be  no  answer  to  an  indictment  under  the  statute  for 
the  sale  of  an  obscene  picture,  that  it  was  sold  to  a  person  not  liable  to  be  injured 
by  it,  or  that  it  was  a  picture,  in  respect  to  execution,  of  distinguished  merit."  (Peo. 
vs.  Muller,  96  N.  Y.,  413.) 

Observation:  The  author  of  the  pamphlet  prefaces  the  above  (besides  indi 
cating  the  passage  noticed  with  italics),  as  follows:  "Fortunately  for  the  com 
munity,  the  Law  suffers  no  apology  to  obscenity  writers,  makes  no  exceptions  in  their 
favor." 

Must  then  every  work  of  art  be  such  as  could  arouse  no  evil  impulse  in  the 
young,  the  susceptible,  the  corrupt? 


"The  courts  are  guardians  of  public  morals."  (Com.  vs.  Sharpless,  2  Sergt. 
&  Rawl.,  102-105;  2  Arch.  Cr.  Pr.  &  PI.  218.— Queen  vs.  Hicklin,  3  Eng.  L.  R. 
Q.  B.)  

"It  is  claimed  that  the  author  of  this  book  is  an  artist  in  his  line;  'achieved  in 
literary  work,'  as  counsel  for  defendant  says  in  his  brief. 

"Justice  Brady  settled  this  point  in  charging  a  jury  in  a  case  where  Art  was 
involved: 

The  world  is  open  to  the  artist .  He  may  represent  objects  and  subjects 
in  whatever  colors  he  may  see  fit  to  adopt,  but  his  methods  must  commend 
themselves  to  the  morality  of  the  people.  He  must  see  to  it  that  they  do  not 
invade  the  law  of  public  morals,  and,  according  to  some  writers,  endanger  the 
public  peace.'  (Peo.  vs.  Muller,  Appeal  Papers  to  Sup.  Ct.  [approved  by  32 
Hun,  408;  96  N.  Y.]) 
"The  Supreme  Court  further  said: 

'The  object  of  the  law  was  to  protect  public  morals,  especially  of  that  class 
of  the  community  whose  character  is  not  so  completely  formed  as  to  be  proof 
against  the  lewd  effects  of  the  pictures,  photographs  and  publications  prohibited. 

'And  where  it  may  be  violated,  that  violation  would  in  no  sense  be  relieved 
by  proof  that  similar  acts  were  tolerated  by  the  public  authorities  of  other  states  or 
countries.'  (Ibid.,  213.) 

"The  Court  of  Appeals,  by  a  unanimous  opinion,  affirmed  the  judgment  and 
rulings  in  the  foregoing  case,  and  said: 

'We  find  no  error  in  the  record.'      (Peo.  vs.  Muller,  96N.Y.,p.413.) 
"In  the  Muller  case  eight  of  the  original  pictures,  it  was  admitted  by  the  prose 
cution,  were  exhibited  in  the  Salon  of  Paris,  France;  the  other  it  was  proven 
was  exhibited  at  the  Centennial  at  Philadelphia,  Pa.,  in  1876." 


"One  Holmes  was  indicted  under  Common   Law  for  publishing  an  obscene 

print  or  book. 

The  second  count  of  the  indictment  did  not  set  forth  the  book,  or  any 
part  thereof,  but  alleged  that  it  was  so  obscene  that  it  would  be  offensive  to 
the  court,  and  improper  to  be  placed  on  the  record  thereof,  and  therefore  the 
jurors  did  not  set  it  forth  in  the  indictment.' 
"The  fifth  count  described  the  print. 
'  'After  conviction  the  defendant  moved  in  arrest  of  judgment,  because  no  part 

of  the  books  was  set  forth,  etc. 
"Held: 

The  second  and  fifth  counts  in  the  indictment  are  certainly  good,  for 
it  can  never  be  required  that  an  obscene  book  and  picture  should  be  displayed 
upon  the  record  of  the  court,  which  must  be  done,  if  the  descriptions  in  these 
counts  are  insufficient.  This  would  be  to  require  that  the  public  itself  should 
give  permanency  and  notoriety  to  indecency  in  order  to  punish  it.'  (1821, — 
Com.  vs.  Holmes,  17  Mass.,  336.)" 

74 


"Judge  Phillips,  in  charging  a  jury,  referred  to  the  fall  of  Adam  and  Eve, 
and  their  being  driven  out  of  the  Garden  of  Eden.  He  then  said: 

'From  that  day  to  this,  civilized  man  has  carried  with  him  a  sense  of 
shame,  the  feeling  that  there  were  some  things  on  which  the  eye,  the  mind, 
should  not  look;  and  where  men  and  women  become  so  depraved  by  the  use, 
or  so  insensate  from  perverted  education,  that  they  will  not  veil  their  eyes, 
nor  hold  their  tongues,  the  government  should  perform  the  office  for  them  in 
protection  of  the  social  compact  and  the  body  politic.'  (U.  S.  vs.  Harmon, 
45  F.  R.,  p.  423.)"  

"Test  of  Obscenity 

' '  In  the  case  of  Queen  vs.  Hecklin,  the  defendant  had  been  convicted  for  dis 
posing  of  a  certain  obscene  book  or  pamphlet .  The  prosecution  conceded  that  the 
book  was  not  sold  for  a  profit,  but  that  Hecklin, as  a  member  of  an  Anti-Romanist 
Society  (the  Protestant  Electoral  Union) ,  procured  and  circulated  the  said  books 
without  a  profit,  among  adults,  for  the  purpose  of  exposing  the  alleged  errors  of 
the  Roman  Catholic  religion,  especially  in  the  matter  of  the  confessional.  Hecklin 
having  been  convicted  appealed. 

'  'Lord  Chief  Justice  Cockburn,  and  the  full  Bench  present,  laid  down  the  fol 
lowing  test  of  obscenity.  He  said: 

'I  think  the  test  of  obscenity  is  this:  whether  the  tendency  of  the  matter 
charged  as  obscenity,  is  to  deprave  and  corrupt  those  whose  minds  are  open 
to  such  immoral  influences,  and  into  whose  hands  a  publication  of  this  sort 
may  fall. 

'Now  with  regard  to  this  work,  it  is  quite  certain  that  it  would  suggest 
to  the  minds  of  the  young  of  either  sex,  or  even  to  persons  of  more  advanced 
years,  thought  of  a  most  impure  and  libidinous  character.'  (Queen  vs. 
Hecklin,  3  Eng.  L.  R.  Q.  B.,  360.) 

"  In  U.  S.  ^.Bennett,  tried  in  U.  S.  Circuit  Court  in  and  for  the  Southern 
District  of  New  York,  Judge  Benedict,  after  reciting  the  foregoing  test,  further 
said: 

'Now,  gentlemen,  I  have  given  you  the  test;  it  is  not  a  question  of 
whether  it  would  corrupt  the  morals,  tend  to  deprave  your  minds,  or  the 
minds  of  every  person;  it  is  a  question  whether  it  tends  to  deprave  the  minds 
of  those  open  to  such  influences,  and  into  whose  hands  a  publication  of  this 
character  might  come. 

'It  is  within  the  law  if  it  would  suggest  impure  and  libidinous  thoughts 
in  the  young  and  inexperienced.'     (U.  S.  vs.  Bennett,  16  Blatch,  p.  362.)" 
Observation:  Note  the  Lord  Chief  Justice's  words,  "a  publication  of  this  sort 
may  fall."     It  is  usually  assumed  by  the  prosecutors  that  the  book  "will"  fall, 
and  as  a  result  of  the  advertisement  afforded  it  by  the  trial,  it  almost  invariably 
does  fall  into  the  hands  of  "those  whose  minds,"  etc. 


"A  book,  to  be  obscene,  need  not  be  obscene  throughout  the  whole  of  its 
contents,  but  if  the  book  is  obscene,  lewd,  or  lascivious  or  indecent  in  whole  or  in 
part,  it  is  an  obscene  book  within  the  meaning  of  the  law — a  lewd  and  lascivious 
and  indecent  book."  ([1877]  U.  S.  vs.  Heywood,  quoted  from  Official  Stenog 
rapher's  Report  in  U.  S.  vs.  Bennett,  16  Blatch,  pp.  368-9.) 

Observation:  See  the  Bible,  Genesis,  9:20-25;  16:1-6;  19;  38:4-9;  39:10-13; 
Romans  I,  26-27.  

"A  book  is  said  to  be  lewd, which  is  incited  by  lust,  or  excites  lustful  thoughts, 
leading  to  irregular  indulgence  of  animal  desires,  lustful,  lecherous,  libidinous. 

"A  book  is  lascivious  which  is  lustful,  which  excites  or  promotes  impure  sexual 
desires . 

"A  book  is  indecent  which  is  unbecoming,  immodest ,  unfit  to  be  seen.      .    .     . 

"Observations  were  made  in  regard  to  the  extent  to  which  these  books  might 
be  obscene,  lewd,  lascivious  or  impure  or  might  excite  unlawful  or  impure  desires; 
and  it  was  said  to  you,  that  you  might  read  these  books,  and  they  would  excite  no 
impure  desire  in  you,  no  impure  thoughts;  but  that  is  not  a  sure  criterion,  by  any 
means:  these  books  are  not  sent  ordinarily  to  such  people  as  you.  But  you  may 
consider  whether  they  are  obscene  or  lewd  or  lascivious  to  any  considerable  portion 
of  the  community,  or  whether  they  excite  impure  desires  in  the  minds  of  the  boys 
and  girls  or  other  persons  that  are  susceptible  to  such  impure  thoughts  and  desires. 

75 


"If  any  other  standard  were  adopted,  probably  no  book  would  be  obscene, 
because  there  would  be  some  men  and  women  so  pure,  perhaps,  that  it  would  not 
excite  an  impure  thought;  but  it  is  to  be  governed  by  its  effect  upon  the  com 
munity  whether  it  is  obscene  and  is  of  dangerous  tendency  in  the  community 
generally,  or  any  considerable  portion  of  the  community."  ([1877]  U.  S.  vs.  Hey- 
wood  quoted  from  Official  Stenographer's  Report  in  U.  S.  vs.  Bennett,  16  Blatch., 
pp.  368-9.) 

"No  matter  what  the  motive  or  purpose  for  which  they  were  sent,  whether  in 
the  real  or  supposed  interest  of  science,  philosophy,  or  morality,  if  they  are  of  an 
obscene  character,  you  should  find  the  defendant  guilty."    (U.  S.  vs.  Slenker,  32 
Fed.  Rep.,  693.) 

Observation:  See  above  definitions  of  obscenity.  Elsewhere  (at  the  trial  of 
"one  Landis  in  Philadelphia,  1870)  the  Appellate  Court  is  quoted  as  saying  to  the 
jury  that 

"  'If  in  their  judgment  the  book  was  fit  and  proper  for  publication,  and  such  as 
should  go  into  their  families,  and  to  be  handed  to  their  sons  and  daughters,  and 
placed  in  boarding-schools  for  the  beneficial  information  of  the  young  and  others, 
then  it  was  their  duty  to  acquit  the  defendant.' 

"The  jury  were  instructed  that  it  did  not  matter  whether  the  things  published 
in  the  book  were  true,  and  in  conformity  with  nature  and  the  laws  of  our  being  or 
not.  If  they  were  unfit  to  be  published,  and  tended  to  inflame  improper  and  lewd 
passions,  it  was  an  obscene  libel." 

"How  would  the  language — the  subject  matter — .  .  .  impress  and  affect 
the  average  man  and  woman  of  intelligence  and  sensibility?  What  is  its  probable 
effect  upon  society  in  general  ?  How  would  such  language  and  matter  impress  a 
public  assembly  of  decent  men  and  women?"  (U.  S.  vs.  Harmon,  45  F.  R.  418.) 

Observation:  How  would  the  most  sacred  and  most  beautiful  and  most  inti 
mate  functions  of  human  life  impress  a  public  assembly  of  decent  men  and  wo 
men? 


"Language  is  a  vehicle  of  thought.  Chaste  words  may  be  applied  so  as  to  be 
understood  in  an  obscene  sense  by  everyone  who  hears  them."  (Edgar  vs.  McCut- 
chen,  9  Mo. ,768.)  "Words,  abstractly  considered,  may  be  free  from  vulgarism,  yet 
they  may,  by  reason  of  the  context,  manifest  to  the  intelligent  apprehension  the 
most  impure  thoughts  and  may  arouse  a  libidinous  passion  more  effectually  in  the 
mind  of  a  modest  woman  than  the  coarse  vernacular  of  the  bawd  and  the  pimp. 
In  other  words,  it  is  the  effect  of  the  language  employed,  conveying  ob 
scure  lewd  or  lascivious  suggestion,  tainted  with  immorality  and  impurity,  which 
is  struck  at  by  the  statute."  (U.  S.  vs.  Moore,  129  Fed.  160-1,  Philips,  D.  J . — 
Missouri,  1904). 

Observation:  The  prosecution  is  permitted  to  introduce  evidence  upon  the 
basis  of  the  context .    The  defense  is  not . 


"It  was  asked  in  argument,  what  remedy  there  was  against  works  similar  to 
those  from  which  the  extracts  given  in  the  pamphlet  are  taken?  No  such  work  is 
now  before  us  judicially,  and  I  pronounce  no  opinion,  therefore,  with  respect  to 
any  such.  It  is  enough  to  say  that  it  does  not  follow  that  because  it  is  a  mis 
demeanor  to  publish  the  present  pamphlet  that  it  would  not  also  be  a  misdemeanor 
to  publish  such  works  as  those  referred  to.  In  any  case,  they  can  afford  no  ar 
gument  to  justify  the  present  publication."  (Steele  vs.  Bannon,  L.  R.,  7;  C.  L.,  p. 
270.) 

"Justice  Blatchford,  in  delivering  the  opinion  of  the  U.  S.  Circuit  Court  in 
Blanc,  further  said,  quoting  from  the  charge  of  Judge  Clarke,  in  U.  S.  vs.  Hey- 
wood,  to- wit.: 

'Something  was  said  in  regard  to  other  books — that  these  books  are  no 
more  offensive  than  some  other  books;  but  you  are  not  sent  here  to  try  other 
books  nor  to  compare  this  book  with  other  books,  and  you  heard  the  court 
rule  out  all  other  books.  The  sole  question  is  whether  these  books  are  obscene, 

76 


lewd  or  indecent.    Other  books  may  be  so,  or  may  not  be  so.    They  may  or 
may  not  have  gone  in  the  mail.'  "     (16  Blatch.,  369.) 

And  finally: 

"The  obscenity  of  a  book,  alleged  to  be  an  obscene  libel,  does  not  depend 
upon  its  truth  or  falsity. 

"It  is  a  question  to  be  determined  by  a  jury The  character  of 

the  book  was  a  question  purely  for  the  jury,  in  which  they  could  not  be  aided  by  an 
expert."  (Commonwealth  vs.  Landis,  8  Phila.,  R.,  453.) 


77 


FOURTEEN  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 


This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below,  or 

on  the  ^date  to  which  renewed. 
RenewecLhfiek?  are  subject  to  immediate  recall. 


r- 


REC  D  LD 


21JUl'59CE 

JtETURNIi  TO 
MATH.-STAT.  Lit. 

1953 


LD  21-100m-2,'55 
(B139s22)476 


JUL  2  0  1962 
-196fi4(> 

\b  B673RC1 


General  Library 

University  of  California 

Berkeley 


U.C.  BERKELEY  LIBRARIES 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


<r 


4 


